text:
Talk:Seoul Metropolitan Subway

Page Layout
For some reason no one knows I am starting on making the pages for each line bigger and better. Any ideas? 'ello? Cheers. Nesnad 17:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The new construction section is becoming a bit long (sorry about that). Maybe the larger projects such as line 9 and the Shin Bundang Line should have their own pages?  --JackSeoul 11:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems fine to me. sikander 17:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and rearranged it and made new pages for Line 9 and the Shin Bundang Line projects. --JackSeoul 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes to Omokgyo Station, see the diff. I think that having a box in every station article with its official hangeul name, its official Hanja name and its official English name (which often enough is not a mere romanization) is much more useful and appropriate than having the box display two romanisations of only the Korean name plus "역".

If that sounds good to you, and if you have too much time at hand, you can change all station articles accordingly, using the SMRT's information pages such as this one for Omokgyo – use the 역검색 button (top of page) to find other stations' pages.

If you disagree, just revert me.—Wikipeditor 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gyeongchun Line?
Why isn't it included in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway template?> It's already completed. 12.185.48.105 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DITTO!!!!! from Chuncheon, Peterhansen2032 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jungang Line?
Is there now a Jungang Line in the Seoul subway system? If so, it needs its own article; Jungang Line is about a very different stretch of track. -- Visviva 09:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the yongsan-dokso section. in Korean wikipedia. we don't have conclusion. we discuss on this section that "this page should separate" Vs. "It must incluse in Line 1". in truth, we don't have exact nothon about "what is line 1 and what is line 1's content" at now. so, I suggest don't make about 'jungang line' as of yongsan-dukso section. - Ellif 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Third Rail or Overhead Wires?
How is SMRT elevtrified?

Third rail?
 * Overhead lines... I'd like to include this information but I don't know where. There is some more information on Seoul Subway systems here: and

Blue Line Terminology
Technically, there are 2 blue lines, #1 dark blue and #4 light blue. However, it appears that #4 is the official blue line per a recent edit. Any detail?? Georgia guy 13:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization
This article is not organized very well. Is there a way we can make the article better laid out without compromising the quality of the article? — † Webdinger BLAH 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Future expansion maps under "History"
The two maps added by Sh1900 are show various planned or proposed expansion of the Seoul subway along with potential routes and station names. Some of routes they show are 5-10 years from completion. There's no explanation as to what they represent or why they're there. I am removing them. JackSeoul 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Incheon Line
Since this is the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, not the Seoul Subway, I think it can be assumed that it covers the subway lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, so I propose that the Incheon Line (I'm not sure why they call it Incheon Line 1, but they do!) be included in this article and its associated template. JPBarrass 13:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called Incheon Subway Line 1 because Line 2 is under construction. The offical maps etc refer to it as line 1. I aree that it should be listed here. It's one system, same ticketing is used, and it appears on the official maps such as here.JackSeoul 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

image overload
Articles are not mere galleries and this article is quickly becoming that. Comparing this version and this current version. I've got to say I much prefer the earlier version. Each station has its own article, there is no reason to have a gallery of images for each station in the main article. And this extremely large image down the side does horrible things to the formatting.--Crossmr (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Image
Just comparing the previous main image, Image:Seoul_Subway_linemap_en.pngand the new one Image:Seoulsubway.jpg. I don't have anything against updating the image, however it should be as legible as the previous one. This new one is packed together more and at a smaller resolution. This leaves a few station names difficult to read. Would it be possible to get this image at a higher resolution.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LRT
To be clear, what is meant by a new LRT line is developing? According to this article there are seven LRT lines in Seoul and 10 in Gyeonggi-do that are in the planning stages. The article specifies EverLine as one of these LRT lines. Is it safe to assume that all these other lines are separate? In Singapore there is the MRT and the LRT and they are integrated but very different. I'm going to move forward under the assumption that these lines are separate and that a new subsection on this page or a new stand alone page should be started. Please commentDaronDierkes (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Total Length
> System length 287 km (179.4 mi)

Including or excluding the Incheon Line? Dmismir (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also excluded with Korail Metropolitan lines. It's just with Seoul metro and SMRT. - Ellif (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excluded a bunch of lines in that figure--it even excludes almost all of Line 1! I updated the opening paragraph with the correct total length of the subway, but couldn't figure out how to edit the sidebar.  I also added the lengths of each line, in the table listing the lines.  (I got the figures from the Korean Wikipedia.  I didn't post links to sources, etc., but I think it's safe to say they are correct, and I assume the sources could be found linked somewhere on the Korean Wikipedia, if someone wants to try.)
 * Perhaps the "Seoul metro only" length should be removed, I live in Seoul, and I find the distinction between the two to be simply ridiculous. It's not like a day-to-day commuter in Seoul even knows the difference between the Korail-operated and Seoul Metro-operated lines, and the Korail operated parts of line 1 are integral to Line 1, as there is not a single operation pattern that operates on Seoul-metro only sections. Seoul lines 1~4 have more to do in common with Korail-operated lines than lines 5~9. In fact, line 9 has more to do in common with the likes of Airport Express and Sinbundang line than lines 1~8. For this reason, I find it simply ridiculous to treat Korail-operated lines separately from the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laggingcomputer (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

map
There are no station (stop) numbers on the map - It is horrible looking for one of over 420 stops! Kdammers (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * -As far as I can remember offhand, the official subway maps don't include the numbers either. That is, if you're on (for example) a Line 3 train, in the train will be a map of only Line 3 that does have the numbers... but any maps that show all the lines omit them (because of information overload on a small map, plus I've never heard anyone ever refer to any station by number, only "_____ Station" or "____ Station on Line _" (talk)
 * I have maps from the subway system (thus, I guess, "official") that have the numbers. it is not info over-load _ the numbers are small but readable.  It is especially not a problem if you have a map with only one language for each stop. Kdammers (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent transcriptions in subway line boxes
Seoul Subway Line 9 and all other Seoul subway articles use the hangul and hanja forms 수도권 전철/首都圈 電鐵 for "Seoul Subway" in the infobox, but the Latin transcription says "Sudogwon Jihacheol", which would be 수도권 지하철/首都圈 地下鐵. Also, "수도권 전철" is "Metropolican Electric Train", while Seoul Subway should be "서울 지하철". Which form is the most correct? Apparently the Korean WP uses "서울 지하철". Jpatokal (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The default English name is "Seoul Subway" or some form. The official Korean title is 수도권 전철 which is romanized as "Sudogwon Jeoncheol". In Seoul people say "지하철" and you are right, there is a Korean Wiki page for "서울 지하철" but their main page is "수도권 전철." Rickinasia (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Construction
There seems to be constant construction over various parts of the Seoul Subway system. I've been working on that from several sources; the Korean language Wiki pages, the iPhone app '지하철', Naver Maps, and what I see while traveling the subways. Any other websites or tools people can recommend please write them here. I remember seeing a Korean language subway/rail construction website awhile ago but am not sure if the site is still open or dead. Rickinasia (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can check at Future Rail Database, but It's all korean. - Ellif (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Page Name
Please see the m:User talk:Galadrien. - Ellif 06:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Korea Metropolitan Subway would be a misleading article name as Korea has subway in cities other than Seoul. It is much easier for a foreigner, who does not know that the Korean literal translation of the subway system, to find this article when searching for seoul's subway system. sikander 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But because of Its subways go with 2 cityes and 1 province, it is NOT subway of SEOUL, but metropolitan subway of korea, I think. If like the Busan Subway or Gwangju Subway, I don't insist this way.- Ellif 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And, Here in Korea, other subways Don't have name of Metropolitan Subway. And, so how you'll explain about Incheon Subway in KMS? - Ellif 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the page was originally named Seoul Metropolitan Subway because the company's website calls it Seoul Metro ( Metro being short for Metropolitan.. meaning a large population consisting of a city and suburban areas ). Personally I don't think it should be renamed to Korean Metropolitan Subway because Seoul is not Korea... Seoul is a city in Korea. Maybe the Incheon Subway article is called Incheon Subway only because that subway does not go to the surrounding suburban areas ? In any case, I don't think this is such a major issue. If you want, you can add to the article some information about what the subway system is called in Seoul and how Korean people refer to the subway. Have a good day. sikander 05:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Original name ; Sudogwan Jeoncheol means Seoul Capital Area Electric Railway so the page is redirected.--Frysun (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ....except it's not called that in English. '수도권' is much better translated as 'metropolitan' and while '전철' technically means 'electric + vehicle/cart/car' calling it 'Electric Railway' is a bad translation. It's much safer to go by what the official transit companies call the system and can be checked by looking at an official map provided by the subways. And as a debate/discussion is ongoing, just changing the name of the system before an agreement can be reached is not proper. Please wait until an agreement has been reached before you change many pages about what the proper name is. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Frysun, you're translating it from the characters, not the words. (I think you're getting it from Chinese characters) There's strong consensus among the official subway operators and official subway maps that have no mention of your "translation". Jeon means electric from Chinese character but Jeoncheol means subway in Korean. Capital Area always refers to Seoul Metropolitan Area. Your translation is literate and incorrect. Camins (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If this page was the Korean page than the 한자 would be incredibly important, however this is concerning the English name. To know what the English name is one should simply look at a map provided by the system system; that is the official name. Do not attempt to retranslate it to suit what you think sounds best. This was already discussed on this talk page - no one suggested name changes for seven years before you changed it. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I noted that there has been a confusion for a long time. Seoul Subway (ko:서울 지하철) is a constituting part of Sudogwon Electric Railway (ko:수도권 전철-Literally translates into Capital Area Electric Railway). The Korean Wikipedia has always maintained two different pages for them while the English Wikipedia confused them with each other which have brought certain problems. I think the changes are correct and long overdue.--Frysun (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted that there has been a confusion for a long time. Seoul Subway (ko:서울 지하철) is a constituting part of Sudogwon Electric Railway (ko:수도권 전철-Literally translates into Capital Area Electric Railway). The Korean Wikipedia has always maintained two different pages for them while the English Wikipedia confused them with each other which have brought certain problems. I think the changes are correct and long overdue.--Frysun (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Frysun your changes are incorrect. The Korean Wikipedia maintains the two for historic purposes - not because they're two different systems. The Seoul Subway term is outdated and no longer used since 2000 when the system was unified under the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Please see the discussion under List of metro systems article before making any more changes. Camins (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to conclude that you have been deliberately misleading. Seoul Subway is not defunct and it is part of, not the equivalent of, Sudogwon Electric Railway.--Frysun (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is defunct as a system - It exists only for revenue counting purpose by the Seoul government which owns Seoul Metro,SMRT and Line 9 - not because it is a separate system. You're right, it is part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, which is the accurate translation, not "Sudogwon electric railway" which you mention. Please see Seoul Metro's official English map, which reads "Metro lines in Seoul Metropolitan Area". None of the words of "Sudogwon Electric Railway" are mentioned there. Camins (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And please stop vandalizing Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article - you redirected it to Seoul Metro, which is the name of the operator of 4 lines. You don't seem to understand that there exists only one single system in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Camins (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were absolutely wrong and please stop your unfounded accusation of vandalism. The fact that Seoul Subway is used by the Seoul authority, as you mentioned, means it is not defunct. On English Wikipedia Seoul Metropolitan Area is the same as Sudogwon but Subway is not Electric Railway. Read the Korean name and it says Electric Railway and you can not equal that to a subway, which has narrower definition.--Frysun (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned Seoul Metro, you cannot deny the fact that Seoul Metropolitan Subway is just the company name for Seoul Metro before 2006. How can it be the name of a much bigger system at the same time? The system is the Sudogwon/Seoul Capital Area/Seoul Metropolitan Area Electric Railway, not subway.--Frysun (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Camins alleged that ''you're translating it from the characters, not the words. (I think you're getting it from Chinese characters)''. He claimed that Jeon means electric from Chinese character but Jeoncheol means subway in Korean., therefore the page should be named as subway not electric railway. This is categorically wrong. Go to the Korean page for Jeoncheol (ko:전철) and you get Electric Railway not subway. The Japanese Wikpedia can be used to verify the usage of Jeoncheol.--Frysun (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop vandalizing the Korean page for the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. For 7 years, it has been saying "Metropolitan Subway in Seoul", now you changed it to whatever you translated to support your claim. This is ridiculous. You're translating it from Chinese characters - Modern Korean and Chinese characters are very different in meaning, don't you get it? Camins (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing it to Japan using Chinese characters doesn't make sense - The meanings of Korean and Chinese characters is very different to begin with. The official subway map of Seoul Metro reads "Metro lines in Seoul Metropolitan Area" - no mention of electric railway or capital. Camins (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The names of any article should be the official name used in that language. The Japanese Wikipedia uses the official titles used in the Japanese language, Chinese pages use the official name in Chinese, and English uses the official page names in English. As this subway system seems to have had a different name in the past, it is worth mentioning in the article. But the name of the article should be what the system is officially called, fresh translations are not necessary. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Camins, I think I should remind you as a new user please refrain from labeling me as vandalizing as it is a very serious accusation on Wikipedia. Korean Wikipedia does not use English, and I was simply correcting as they follow the name used here. The fact that it has been imprecise for 7 years (which I cannot verify) should not prevent us from making changes. Also I do not know the reason for your unsupported guessing that I translated the name from Chinese. The fact is that I read both the Hangul and the Hanja on the Korean page. It only seems to me that you are misleading those who have no knowledge of the Korean language here. We both know that the Seoul system is a bit fragmented with many operators, but the simple fact is that there is a smaller rapid transit Seoul Subway which the city government uses to get its annual ridership figures and so on, and there is also a broader system Jeoncheol which includes other railway services like AREX. You may not like the name Electric Railway, but the name Subway is absolutely wrong. First of all, many of the lines in the Jeocheol system are not subway. Secondly, Jeoncheol in Korean literally means electric railway. It is true that many 'Jeoncheol' in Seoul are subways but there are fundamentally different. Thirdly, if you keep pushing the name 'subway' for this article, which name would you use for the real Seoul Subway system? You kept saying that Metropolitan subway is the so-called official name but where is the source? As a third-party alternative, http://www.urbanrail.net/as/kr/seoul/seoul.htm lists the railways in Seoul. Lines 1-9 make up the Seoul Subway and there are also other lines which are not part of Seoul Subway. You should not simply blur the differences and bundle name together under a so-called metropolitan subway.--Frysun (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your timing of editing the Korean 수도권 전철 is extremely suspicious - You did it just as discussion about this name went along just now. Why else would you change it right now? This indicates vandalism. Anyhow, it is wrong to begin with. You're simply denying strong consensus from the official subway operators and the official subway maps. Check out this official English map from Seoul Metro for why you're wrong: http://cafe.naver.com/ArticleRead.nhn?clubid=10191706&menuid=28&boardtype=I&page=1&specialmenutype=&articleid=628&referrerAllArticles=false Camins (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that not all sections of the system are "subway" in its technical meaning. But that's not the point. The same could be said for Tokyo subway, New York subway or any other subway in the world because they have ultimately stations overground. So long as the majority of it is underground, the term is fine to be used. Nobody but you challenged it for 7 years, so clearly, it has gained strong consensus for a very long time. Camins (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not mention unreliable third-party sites - There is strong consensus to use the official subway operator's maps.Camins (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing fragmented about the Seoul subway - Sudogwon is Seoul metropolitan and Jeoncheol is subway - as simple as that. Have you ever seen an official map that just lists the line 1-9 you mentioned? No. I would be very surprised if I did. They always include AREX, Budang, Sinbudang and so on. This map has been official since the year 2000 when they were united under one sytem. Why are you denying facts and official operators? There is no "real seoul subway" - it is ONLY used for revenue counting purposes, not as a "system". Please stop confusing about ownership and operations. They are completely different. Camins (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Official translation from Korean-English dictionary for Jeoncheol 전철 which says it means subway: http://endic.naver.com/search.nhn?dicQuery=%EC%A0%84%EC%B2%A0&query=%EC%A0%84%EC%B2%A0&target=dic&ie=utf8&query_utf=&isOnlyViewEE=N
 * Official translation from Korean-English dictionary for Sudogwon 수도권, which says it means metropolitan area: http://endic.naver.com/search.nhn?&searchOption=all&query=%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84%EA%B6%8C

Camins (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Camins, I think we need to be sincere in our discussion, or it would undermine the mutual trust on Wikipedia. When you give me a link like http://endic.naver.com/search.nhn?&searchOption=all&query=%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84%EA%B6%8C&isEngVer=Y (note I change the interface to English so that others can read as well), it is unfair for you to select only the meaning that caters your argument. The most precise meaning for 수도권 is capital area, capital region, capital territory, etc. Metropolitan Area is also listed because it is often used to refer to a country's capital, as in the case for Seoul, London, Tokyo, but not always (NYC is a counterexample). Now, I know the problem like NYC does not exist in Korea, so this is only the minor part of our discussion.
 * The major part of whether to use subway or railway for Jeoncheol. Again, I think it is very unfair for you to abuse the term official, when what you are posting here are just sources from naver.com which certainly is not the official representative for Seoul subway or the whole wide-area railway system. naver.com is only a third-party source, just as http://www.urbanrail.net/as/kr/seoul/seoul.htm. BTW, I think you are not entitled to say Please do not mention unreliable third-party sites in this context. Third-party sources are the very citations Wikipedia need, and the wide usage of urbanrail.net on Wikipedia as a source clearly refutes your assumption that it is unreliable.
 * I do not deny that the current subway map includes both Seoul Subway lines 1-9 and other non-Seoul Subway, but this does not mean there should be a single Wikipedia page for both Seoul Subway and the Capital Area Electric Railway. The London Tube map includes both the Tube and other non-tube lines like London Overground, DLR, would you say they should all be combined as a London Metropolitan Subway or something? Note that those lines are also integrated. Seoul situation is similarly to London. Seoul Subway is the equivalent of London Underground, and in Korea, as you said, it is used for various counting purposes. Also, Seoul Subway have different operators with other lines. Seoul also have other railway lines which are not part of Seoul Subway but integrated just as London's Overground, DLR. I do not see why we should mix Seoul Subway with Sudogwon Electric Railway. There should definitely be two Wikipedia articles for the two, in particular when the Korean Wikipedia (along with Chinese and Japanese) have been maintaining two independent articles for ages.--Frysun (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fryrun, the dictionary sources from Oxford Advanced Learner, Neungyule and Dong-A Prime, three highly respected, trusted and most widely used dictionaries in Korea: http://endic.naver.com/?isEngVer=Y It is not a third-party source. It's a primary source. Besides, Naver is South Korea's No.1 portal (70% market share versus 2% for Google). Jeoncheol means subway according to the dictionary, why are you denying official dictionary translations and consensus from other users which have stayed for over 12 years? The dictionary officially says "a metropolitan subway line map" in an example phrase below - Why are you denying the dictionary? This is Korea's most widely used and trusted Korean-English dictionary. It does not say "capital area" because that's the correct translation when used in subway maps - Meanings change depending on context. If you say capital, what capital? Capital of Japan? No. It's always translated as Seoul metropolitan because that's the name of the capital.
 * Seoul is different from London because all of its lines have grade-separated tracks and are 100% electric. You can't say the same for London. London overground runs on Diesel and runs on shared tracks. They're not even subways to begin with. That's why it's only listed in the tube map for guidance only and with a separate color and shape. Seoul Metropolitan Subway lines do not share tracks with other railway lines - Line 1, for example, has its own electrified right of way and its own track, even if other railway go right next to it. The so-called "Seoul Subway" is unofficial and doesn't exist as a term to begin with. Where's your source about this name? Do you have any source other than user-edited Wikipedia that lists Line 1~9? No. When people think of Seoul Subway, they think 99.9% of the time about the official maps. Yes, you are denying official maps because can you give me one single map which just lists line 1-9? No. Because they don't exist. They have never existed since 2000. Why are you creating a separate article based on ownership (pretending as if it's a different system) when it can be mentioned in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article? The Korean Wikipedia does just that - Mentioning ownership along with operators. Do the same for the English wiki. Create a new column mentioning the operators and that it is used for revenue counting purposes if you want. Just because the Korean, Chinese or Japanese do it, doesn't mean it has to be done the same way in English. English readers are a different audience and will be confused that there are two systems, when there's only one. Your imaginative "seoul subway" is only used for revenue counting purposes, not as a system. Seoul government owns line 1-9, so they want to know how much money it makes - Not confuse users with two different maps or systems. Nobody uses it as a system. You're still confused about ownership and operations. If you want, we can mention ownership in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article but there's no need to create two articles because it will completely confuse the average English reader. There's no point in dedicating an entire article titled "seoul subway" just to mention that they're used for revenue counting purposes. That doesn't even qualify for Notability. Camins (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Frysun, you said "I noted that there has been a confusion for a long time." - what confusion? "...while the English Wikipedia confused them with each other which have brought certain problems." - what problems? ₪Rick n Asia₪ 13:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More official proof from Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit (one of the two major operators of Seoul subway) that Frysun's made-up name is nonsense - This is the official subway map used on all stations from Lines 5~8 which clearly reads "Seoul Metropolitan Area Subway Map": http://cafe.naver.com/frdb/139 Can it be anymore clear? I think we have enough consensus now - Two of the largest and main operators of Seoul subway (Seoul Metro, the other one operating Lines 1~4 already proven previously) all having no mention of the words used by Frysun. Besides, Sudogwon is just the pronounciation - English readers have no idea what that means. All Wikipedia articles on Korean words have been translated to English (Korean reunification article, for example, we should call it Joguktongil if we follow Frysun's nonsense way of naming) I'm quite frankly finding this absurd at best at this point, the fact Frysun is trying to change such a commonly accepted word in the general public. It's like trying to change the word "car" to "moving vehicle". Nobody calls Seoul's metro an electric railway. Not even close. Ask anyone. If you need further proof, I can take a picture of more official maps from the Seoul subway stations right now to proof how wrong you are Frysun. Camins (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Frysun is no longer discussing anymore suggests we have reached a consensus that it should be renamed back to as it has always been. Camins (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You concluded way to early. Normally a contested move should have 7 days of dissuasion OK since the article has already been moved by voting, I'll leave the discussion for now.--Frysun (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sudogwon Electric Railway → Seoul Metropolitan Subway – Contested request (I neither support nor oppose move). Apteva (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

 * Somebody suddenly changed the name of Seoul's metro system which has been "Seoul Metropolitan Subway" for 12 years to an incorrect title invented by himself/herself - The official dictionaries, official subway operators and maps have universal consensus this is the correct name. Camins (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same request made yesterday. Page not moved by administrator due to ongoing discussion.--Frysun (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Frysun refuses to participate in the discussion anymore, no participation since last discussion 24 hours ago, yet has time to oppose on this section, clearly abusing the nature of contested technical requests. Strong consensus exists with another editor along with official dictionaries, official operators and maps that Frysun's name is incorrect. Frysun is the only user insisting on this name. Camins (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy revert to stable title on procedural grounds per WP:BRD. A third party look at article history shows that this TR is starting at the wrong end from a series of disruptive moves by Frysun and any move request should start from the stable title. See discussion on procedure at WT:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We should follow the wikipedian procedure. Moving to Sudogwon Electric Railway for User:Frysun is not fair. And I oppose that this article is splited to 수도권 전철 and 서울 지하철 although two are different in a view. It is easy that this is considered one system. If the name Seoul Metropolitan Subway is not proper, the talk must go on. Sawol (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop: The procedure is quite clear.  When a controversial move has been made, and it is not possible to revert that, then the move should be undone by an administrator on technical grounds to enable the proposer (if they wish) to formally propose the move to the new title under the Requested move process.  As In ictu oculi says, this mirrors WP:BRD.  This has now been done, and this particular Requested move request needs to be closed down.  Skinsmoke (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Korea name
The infobox to the right has been on this article for quite a long time before removed by User:Camins, alleging that it is unverified, unofficial and outdated name, please discuss before making any changes. In the previous discussion,, Camins maintained that Seoul Metropolitan Subway is the name for Sudogwan Jeoncheol. Now that the article has been moved and renamed, why deleting its Korean name?--Frysun (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this name is not official to begin with, having no source. The Korean wiki article is outdated because this name was dropped with the opening of Line 1 extension to Cheonan in 2005 and made further irrelevant by opening of Gyeongchun Line in 2010, both are not in Sudogwon. Line 1 extension to Sinchang is in Asan, another city not in Sudogwon. Camins (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I see. Thanks for reminding me of this. I have updated the name.--Frysun (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Please stop ignoring the consensus and do not claim to have "updated" it to another nonsense name when the official proof below clearly states that it is the "Seoul Metropolitan Subway".Camins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated Name
As suggested in the previous section by Camins, the name of Sudogwan Jeoncheol is outdated since 2005. Following sources show that the current name is 광역전철 (Gwangyeok Jeoncheol) in Korean and Seoul Metropolitan Railway in English, hence the rename of the article. Sources:
 * For the latest published map (2012 edition) || Metropolitan Railway map, the title shows the bilingual names.
 * For the cover of such maps Seoul Metropolitan Railway Map Cover, showing the bilingual names and the railway lines included in the system.
 * For the in-station map of Seoul Metropolitan Railway map in 2010 see here Metropolitan Railway map Station 2010
 * For the latest in-station map of Seoul Metropolitan Railway map (November 2012) see here Metropolitan Railway Station map 2012
 * Note that all maps contain official names both in English and Korean (Hangul and Hanja).--Frysun (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Frysun, you continue to disrupt this article, ignoring the consensus to discuss with other users before making any changes and your sources are highly misleading and outdated. Firstly, you've only shown a subway map stand used ages ago by only 4 lines, which is not "updated" as you claim. The other maps you have shown is not from the official operator but from a third-party printing company. Very misleading. Claiming that they're the "latest" and "official" is wrong. To prove how wrong your claims are, I've got on the Seoul Subway today and taken the very latest (accurate as of 18th March 2013 as per camera's date taken) maps not just from the subway stands but also from the subway cars of both operators (Operator of Lines 1,2,4,5,6,7,8). Mind you, the SMRT map has been completely updated on all lines starting February 2013 and the Seoul Metro map is the latest generation subway car opened with the Line 3 extension to Ogeum (the last updated Seoul Metro section). Note this train also operates to Korail maintained section in the west and it's the exact wording as the map used by SMRT, showing universal consensus by the official operators. This should reveal strong official consensus that the official name is "Seoul Metropolitan Subway", not railway, which would be completely confusing to readers anyway with the national railway of Korea. Sure, some sections are not subway in the technical sense, but so are some sections of the New York subway and the vast majority have always been underground and the ones people use daily are 90% underground. Overground sections have far fewer train frequencies because of the lack of people using them. Based on universal official consensus of Seoul's two major subway operators, I strongly suggest we revert this back to the name it has always been for 7 years since this article was created at Wikipedia, or almost 40 years since Seoul Subway's existence, until User:Frysun came along and suddenly it changed it to his taste. Remember there's not a single rapid transit system in the world that's called a "railway". Please stop your nonsense Frysun. Camins (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the 6 images in a gallery to avoid difficulty for people reading later messages on narrow screens such as iPads. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Move? 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by. I've move-protected the page for one month. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seoul Metropolitan Railway → Seoul Metropolitan Subway –
 * User:Frysun continues to ignore consensus to keep the article's name as it has always been since its existence, with latest maps from official subway operators all calling it a subway, not a railway. 211.36.133.132 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- this was at Seoul Metropolitan Subway for some time before unilaterally moved it to "Railway" twice. It has already been reverted per WP:BRD once before (see discussion at Talk:Seoul Metropolitan Railway), but Frysun refuses to open a new discussion, so should be reverted to "Subway" once again, and MOVE-PROTECTED, to prevent Frysun from moving it without a discussion. And someone please trout Frysun. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy revert to stable title on procedural grounds per WP:BRD. A consensus was already achieved by all users except Frysun and there is universal consensus among the official operators that this is a subway. This should be reverted with move protected just like the user mentioned above to prevent further abuses because Frysun ignores any consensus achieved. Otherwise Frysun will move it to another title of his will without any consensus and this issue will simply repeat itself. Camins (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert to "Subway" and move-protect as that is what official maps and PSA say the title is. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop Again, this needs to be reverted by an administrator to Seoul Metropolitan Subway.  If Frysun wishes to propose a move under the Requested move process, then fine, but to continue to make controversial moves of this article without consensus is as clear a case of Disruptive editing as we are likely to see.  Once the page is reverted, it should be move protected to prevent any more games being played to try to circumvent the normal process.  Skinsmoke (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support In South Korea the "subway" or "metro" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the rapid transit, not the "metropolitan railway".  Sawol (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Automatic Platform Doors
The page says "All stations of the Seoul subway are installed with automatic platform gates for safety.[5]" However I remember a bunch of lines at the north side of Line 1 didn't have doors upwards of a year or two ago. And last week when I transferred from Sinbundang to Bundang Line and headed south multiple stations I noticed multiple without safety doors but eventually did see some before exiting (forgot the station). The reference mentioned said 92 finished with 173 more to do. I'm not sure how many existed in 2009 but there are nearly 500 now. Did something got lost in translation with "All metro stations in Seoul" or am I missing something?

Really looking for feedback. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 16:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Expand article
There are no clear graphs showing the rolling stock, nor are there any links to the rolling stock pages. The page looks confusing with just a list of stock numbers and a gallery. Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

'System Map' lacks many new additions to the subway network
'System Map', that is shown at the right corner of the document lacks newly added stations/lines. It seems that the image hasn't been update for a while. I can easily say that it lacks newly constructed lines: Suin line (Incheon - Oido), Budang line Mangpo Extension (Bojeong - Mangpo), Bundang line Wangsimni Extension (Seonlleung - Wangsimni), Everline (Giheung - Everland), Sinbundang DX line (Gangnam - Jeongja), Uijeongbu LRT (Balgok - Tapseok), Line 7 Incheon Extension (Onsu - Bupyeong-gu Office) and newly constructed stations: Seonjeongneung (Bundang line, b/ Seonlleung and Gangnam-gu Office) [There can be a lot more, as I just glanced through the map / Line 7 Extension is quite big change...]

There has been quite changes to the system, so this outdated map could be misleading to people who get to learn about Seoul Met. Subway for the first time.

I have several possible suggestions (I'm new to Wiki and am not used to Wiki's copyright policies, so a senior reader could do this job, possibly) 1. Map by SMRT (Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corp., corp. that runs Seoul Metro line 5-8) http://www.smrt.co.kr/program/cyberStation/main2.jsp?lang=e (download link at right) As this map is made by operational corp, it is updated decently.

for now, i'm going to try to find some more maps, (since this system is expanding quite rapidly and many maps are outdated) and if other members have found / made great maps, please put it as considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscho527 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of stations
The number of stations is confusing. Depending on who one asks, it can be 615 stations, 585 stations, 493 stations, or 422 stations. Is there a definite source for any of these numbers? Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I will put that up soon on the intro. Massyparcer (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Korail
A few editors appear to have a problem with the fact that one of Seoul's metro operators, Korail, is also South Korea's national railroad. This has been removed a few times today, last with the note that the source given was "a personal blog post" which collided with WP:Verifiability. I would hardly characterize Everydaykorea.com as "a personal blog." It is probably better suited for the topic at hand than, say, Jalopnik. I hope the new sources (Korail, AP) will no longer be doubted. I am glad that WP:Verifiability is now recognized as being important, and I suggest to remove Jalopnik to comply with the new standards for reliable sources. BsBsBs (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sourcing a blog post maintained by one editor is ridiculous. Unlike everydaykorea, Jalopnick, if you look at alexa is ranked 3286th, and is a much more high-profile source by professional editors and hence, more than qualifies under WP:Verifiability. You're suppose to list lines on that section, not explain the operator. Which is completely irrelevant with the purpose of that section. Massyparcer (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Whether Jalopnik is professionally edited is a matter of debate. BsBsBs (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should post irrelevant and inappropriate content here. The main point is crystal clear from WP:Verfiability - No PERSONAL Blogs which we call "self-published sources" in Wikipedia that is prohibited. That everydaykorea is clearly from one personal guy. Also, I will remove that note added by Epic about the left-hand track, right-hand track nonsense that is totally unverifiable and unsourced original research without a single source. And your completely irrelevant and unnecessary intro to Korail which is completely going against the purpose of that section. Lists and intros are different do you get it? Remember: Any unsourced claims may be challenged and removed. Massyparcer (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The side on which the trains run is pertinent to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't matter because it is unsourced and anything unreferenced will be challenged and removed. I advise you to either stop this edit warring nonsense or get us a proper source to verify your claim. I will remove your unsourced claim once again, and next time you revert, you better have a source to prove your claim. Massyparcer (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Line 1 runs on the leftLine 4 runs part on the left, and part on the right, and the rest run on the right, according to ko.wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sinbundang Line runs on the left, as does A*REX. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And we all know that using Wikipedia articles as sources is strictly forbidden. You have no reliable sources to prove your claims. Next time you revert, you better have something better than Wikipedia articles. Massyparcer (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the List of Metro Systems talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should seriously discuss matters related to this article here, not redirect me to another article's talk page. Massyparcer (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's because I don't want to type the same comment twice. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have no sources in your latest revert, which leaves me no choice but to remove this unsourced claim. Massyparcer (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't remove it! You'll break 3RR. By the way, I re-added it because it seemed that other editors were adding it back in as well, not because I had personal reasons for adding it. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would that break 3RR? I have only reverted once. That doesn't excuse you to add unsourced and unverified content. I strongly suggest you either get out and do your work to get a reliable source, or we have no choice to remove this nonsense. Massyparcer (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Make article, not edit war
One recent editor of this article has just been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges (such as blanking parts of the article, and calling another editor a "moron.") Please edit responsibly, and do not wage edit warfare. Substantive changes should be discussed here first.

Likewise, characterizing the work product of other editors as "nonsense" is rude. We will all be measured by the standards we set. BsBsBs (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The editor in question was vandalizing and blanking pages sitewide; it wasn't limited to this article. Still, it's good advice to take care when you edit. Epicgenius (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I know, I follow the edit histories carefully. BsBsBs (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-longest-metro-and-subway-systems-4144725
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/uijeongbu-light-rail-transit/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/seoul-metro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Korail Source
I found this page on Korail's site mentioning opening dates for lines/sections and lengths. This is kind of a note to myself but also for others if they want to use it. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140227072212/http://www.korail.com/file/statistics/2012/2012-04.pdf to http://www.korail.com/file/statistics/2012/2012-04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

The Wikipedia post on the world's metro lines says that Shanghai is the longest metro in route length. The two data are conflicting. Considering the fact that this data was retrieved in 2014, this data needs fact-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.170.26.219 (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051744/http://mltm.go.kr/USR/policyData/m_34681/dtl.jsp?id=422 to http://mltm.go.kr/USR/policyData/m_34681/dtl.jsp?id=422

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seoul Metropolitan Subway


text:
Talk:Shin Saimdang

Untitled
Need a new source, link redirects to Reuters.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.81.247 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sin Saimdang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727171242/http://www.ojukheon.or.kr/ to http://www.ojukheon.or.kr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Shin Saimdang


text:
Two bits

Two bits or two-bit may refer to:

 * Quarter (United States coin), nicknamed "Two bits"

People

 * Mr. Two Bits (born 1922), football fan of the Florida Gators football team
 * Two-Bits Homan (born 1898), Henry Homan, professional American football player in the 1920s
 * Two Bits Man, author of the column "Two Bits" in The Technique, Georgia Institute of Technology, US

Media

 * Two Bits, a 1995 American film
 * "Two bits", the response in the seven-note rhythm "Shave and a Haircut"
 * Two-Bit Mathews, a character in the 1965 American novel The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton

title: Two bits


text:
Talk:First Sino-Japanese War

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Sino-Japanese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311074213/http://www.russojapanesewar.com/galsworthy.html to http://www.russojapanesewar.com/galsworthy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article needed: Tatsumaru Incident
Article needed: Tatsumaru Incident. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Qing Infobox Casualties update
On the Chinese version of the page, there's a seemingly more exact breakdown of killed and wounded on the Chinese side of the conflict in the infobox, which maps quite closely to the ~35k the English page has currently.

I can't see any clear source for the breakdown, but if it's valid we should bring it over to this version of the page. 110.145.151.142 (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing article?
"After more than six months of unbroken successes by (the) Japanese land and naval forces and the loss of the port of Weihaiwei, the Qing government sued for peace in February 1895".

Shouldn't be there an article between "by" and "Japanese"? Ramiro Echeverría (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

❌ Reads OK with or without: successes by Japanese land and [Japanese] naval forces. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Sino-Japanese War


text:
Bit (money)

The word bit is a colloquial expression referring to specific coins in various coinages throughout the world.

United States
In the US, the bit is equal to $1/8$¢, a designation which dates from the colonial period, when the most common unit of currency used was the Spanish dollar, also known as "piece of eight", which was worth 8 Spanish silver reales. $$12 1/2$ or 1 silver real was 1 "bit".

With the adoption of the decimal U.S. currency in 1794, there was no longer a U.S. coin worth $$1/undefined$, but "two bits" remained in the language with the meaning of $$1/8$. Because there was no 1-bit coin, a dime (10¢) was sometimes called a short bit and 15¢ a long bit. (The picayune, which was originally $1/4$real or $1/2$bit ($1/2$¢), was similarly transferred to the US nickel.)

In addition, Spanish coinage, like other foreign coins, continued to be widely used and allowed as legal tender by Chapter XXII of the Act of April 10, 1806 until the Coinage Act of 1857 discontinued the practice.

Robert Louis Stevenson describes his experience with bits in Across the Plains, (1892) p.144:

"In the Pacific States they have made a bolder push for complexity, and settle their affairs by a coin that no longer exists – the bit, or old Mexican real. The supposed value of the bit is twelve and a half cents, eight to the dollar. When it comes to two bits, the quarter-dollar stands for the required amount. But how about an odd bit? The nearest coin to it is a dime, which is, short by a fifth. That, then, is called a short bit. If you have one, you lay it triumphantly down, and save two and a half cents. But if you have not, and lay down a quarter, the bar-keeper or shopman calmly tenders you a dime by way of change; and thus you have paid what is called a long bit, and lost two and a half cents, or even, by comparison with a short bit, five cents."

"Two bits" or "two bit" continues in general use as a colloquial expression, for 25¢, or a quarter dollar as in song and catchphrase "Shave and a Haircut, two bits." As an adjective, "two-bit" describes something cheap or unworthy.

Roger Miller's song "King of the Road" features the lines: Ah, but two hours of pushin' broom buys an / Eight by twelve four-bit room referring to signs stating "Rooms to let, 50¢."

In the early 1930s, Crown Records was a US record label which sold records for only 25¢. The company advertised on their sleeves, "2 Hits for 2 Bits."

Another example of this use of "bit" can be found in the poem "Six-Bits Blues" by Langston Hughes, which includes the following couplet: Gimme six bits' worth o'ticket / On a train that runs somewhere.…

The expression also survives in the sports cheer "Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar … all for (player's name), stand up and holler!"

The New York Stock Exchange continued to list stock prices in $$6 1/4$ until June 24, 1997, at which time it started listing in $$1/8$. It did not fully implement decimal listing until January 29, 2001.

Danish West Indies
From 1905 to 1917, the Danish West Indies used the bit as part of its currency system. In 1904, two new currency denominations were introduced: the bit and francs which were overlaid on the old cent and daler denominations. The four units were related as 5 bits = 1 cent, 100 bits = 20 cents = 1 franc, 100 cents = 5 francs = 1 daler. Coins were issued each denominated in two units, bits and cents, francs and cents, or francs and daler. Postage stamps were denominated in bits and francs; the lowest value was five bits.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries and Ireland
In Britain, Ireland and parts of the former British Empire, where before decimalisation a British-style currency of "pounds, shillings and pence" was in use, the word "bit" was applied colloquially to any of a range of low-denomination coins. Thus a threepence coin or "threepenny piece" was referred to as a "threepenny bit", usually pronounced "thrupny bit".

The term was used only for coins with a value of several named units (e.g., three pence), and never applied to a penny, shilling, or half crown coin.

Although earlier there had been other values in circulation such as the "fourpenny bit" or "groat", the "bit" coins still in use in the United Kingdom up to decimalisation in 1971 were the two-shilling bit (or "florin") (often "two-bob bit"), the sixpenny bit (or "tanner"), and the threepenny bit.

In the UK, use of the term "bit" had already disappeared with the exception of the 'thruppeny bit', by the time British currency moved to decimal coinage and the consequential loss of the coin denominations to which it had applied. Thus a ten pence piece is referred to merely as "ten pence", or even "ten pee", not as a "tenpenny bit". The term 'pee' refers to the change in abbreviation of the British penny from 'd' to 'p' which denoted the 'New Penny'.

The historic American adjective "two-bit" (to describe something worthless or insignificant) has a British equivalent in "tuppenny-ha'penny" – literally, worth two and a half (old) pence.

title: Bit (money)


text:
Talk:Sino-Korean vocabulary

Chronology
Doesn't the Thousand Character Classic postdate the Han dynasty by several centuries? -- Visviva 09:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)í

Merge into Hanja article
I suggested a merge of this article into the Hanja article because:
 * 1) Both this article and the Hanja article suggest or imply that "Hanja" and "Sino-Korean" are the same thing. In the Hanja article, the first sentence is, "Hanja, or hanmun, sometimes translated as Sino-Korean characters or just Chinese characters, are what Chinese characters (hànzì) are called in Korean", where "Sino-Korean characters" are linked to this article.
 * 2) This article is too short to stand on its own.

It's been explained to me that Hanja and Sino-Korean are two different things. But it still remains that there's not much content on this article and I think it should be merged, as a section, into either the Hanja article or Korean language. --Hong Qi Gong 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of Hanja and Sino-Korean. The entire topic of "Sino-Korean" doesn't even exist in Korea. These so called Sino-Korean words that the Chinese refer to are Hanja. Hanja means "Chinese words". Labelling Chinese words as Sino-Korean are complete and utter lies. --aneconomist 14:47, 24 December 2007 (EST)

 * If "Hanja are Chinese words", as Aneconomist says, the situation's even worse than he makes out. At least Sino-Korean can be regarded as Korean vocabulary originally borrowed from Chinese. If Hanja is Chinese, then the Korean language is filled with pure Chinese words! That means that every Korean can't help but constantly slip into Chinese when holding an everyday conversation. (What's worse, they are "Chinese words" that a Chinese could barely understand if pronounced aloud.) This is patent nonsense. Aneconomist should stick to economics.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't make sense.Subvertmsm (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vocabulary section
With some hesitation I've removed the Chinese (Mandarin) readings from the list of kun'yomi borrowings from Japanese. There is no doubt that this is information of a certain interest for those who like seeing the resemblances between hanja readings and Mandarin, but that is not the point of this section and it is quite confusing in the context of the article. There are at least two problems: (1) The listing of the Chinese pronunciations gives the impression that these words actually might exist in Chinese, whereas some of them are merely hypothetical forms -- how the character combinations would be pronounced if they were actually Chinese words. This is confusing for a person who doesn't know much Chinese and misrepresents the actual situation. (2) There is no particular reason for inserting Mandarin over other possibilities. Why not the Japanese on'yomi, which would make clear the difference between on'yomi and kun'yomi? Why not the Cantonese readings, which might be closer to the Korean in pronunciation? Why not Vietnamese, even? There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming reason for putting the Mandarin pronunciation here, other than to say: "Hey look, this is how we'd pronounce these in Mandarin!"

I'm adding this note because removing information from a Wiki article is in a general sense frowned upon. In this case, however, the information seemed more distracting than illuminating. Bathrobe 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Someone has since added the Cantonese pronunciation and then the Mandarin pronunciation again. The point I make above still stands. These are not words in Chinese (except for 手续), so there is little point in listing how they would be pronounced if they were Chinese words. It would make about as much sense as if we added a column showing how these character combinations would be pronounced if they were read in on'yomi: sogō, kenbutsu (actually a different word in Japanese, 見物), kenseki, shushiki, shigō, and shuzoku. This is patent nonsense since despite the theoretical possibility of reading these combinations this way in Japanese, that is not how they are actually read. Adding all these theoretical readings is a kind of linguistic game (Hey guys, this is how WE would read it) but doesn't add anything to the point of the article. Hence I've removed the Cantonese and Mandarin columns again.

 * Bathrobe (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * adding the Cantonese pronounciations is, I think legitimate, Cantonese is closer to the Chinese language of the Tang dynasty then Mandarin is and the majority of the Chinese vocabulary entering the Korean language would have been at or before this time, there has of course been a divergence in how things sound in the intervening millenia, but not as much as with Mandarin. Its unscientific but as a Cantonese speaking fan of K-dramas there are instances when I can recognise a close cognate of a Chinese word, usually nouns, for me the most memorable occassion was one line in The Princess Hours in which every word has a Cantonese cognate ("Princess prepare to enter the palace").--KTo288 (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sino-Korean traditionally written in Hanja"
The problem with saying that Sino-Korean traditionally was written in Hanja, and that now it is not, is that the point is basically moot. ALL of the Korean language was "traditionally" written in Hanja up until the 20th century when Hangul finally came into popular usage, and that includes native Korean words as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is another patently false lie from the Chinese. Hangul has used for centuries prior to the 20th century. The idea that Koreans did not use their own language for centuries after it was invented is just ludicrous and contributes to the lack of integrity and promotion of propaganda in wikipedia.Aneconomist (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 * No one said anything of the kind. You don't seem to know the difference between language and writing. kwami (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong just said Korean was never used in Korea. I think its you who doesn't know the difference between language and writing. There's more than enough proof of the use of Korean, that it just makes his comment ridiculous.Subvertmsm (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I think he said that Korean script (hangul) wasn't used until the 20th century. If he's wrong, address that statement. Don't put nonsense words in his mouth. I can't find anything he wrote that says "Korean was never used in Korea". You seem to the one who can't understand the difference between script and writing.
 * Are you our old friend Aneconomist back under a different name?
 * I've reverted you edits pending a sensible response to my requests for clarification at the Hanja talk page.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Korean vocabulary?
It's been raised at the Sino-Japanese talk page that "Sino-Japanese" is not a very descriptive title for the page. The same would apply to "Sino-Korean". Could we move this page to "Sino-Korean vocabulary"? That would be much clearer. (Perhaps with a redirect page at Hanja-eo). Bathrobe (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply at the Sino-Japanese talk page - . Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * My reply also at Sino-Japanese.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Same here. I like Bathrobe's suggestion. kwami (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Readings
It would be nice to see the readings of the Japanese Kanji and The readings of the Chinese characters in English beside the words in parenthesis like the Korean words are. I want to see the comparison between Korean pronunciations and the readings of the Chinese characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.146.130 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanisations
Please add romanisations to every word in every language. I wish I could read the words, but I can't, but I'm still interested in seeing the similarities and differences between the source words and the loaned counterparts in Japanese and Korean. Skomakar'n (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Usage Note:
I was watching a new Korean show on Hulu today called "Faith".

In the pilot, there is a scene in which a main character visits a fortune teller who reads her fortune from sticks in "Sino-Korean".

I would be interested in seeing a section on this page that cites the use of Sino-Korean in occult or traditional religious practices in contemporary Korea, and especially a discussion of why this particular usage seemed to be unintelligible to the characters in the aforementioned scene.

This article as it stands implies that Sino-Korean words are recognizable and in current usage, but the television show implied that there is a specific vocabulary which has a place in Korean subcultures, but not in popular culture.

Of course, it could have just been a bad translation into English.

See the video in question here: http://www.hulu.com/stand_alone/441561af186433abcfea944607eb08d5?continuous_play_mode=2&continuous_play=on&continuous_play_sort=

The scene in question begins at approximately 47:45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktol (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing Systems: ˜aœ Linguistic Introduction  By Geoffrey Sampson
http://books.google.com/books?id=tVcdNRvwoDkC&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tVcdNRvwoDkC&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic correspondences to Chinese
The article Sino-Japanese vocabulary describes the phonetic correspondences between Middle Chinese, Modern Chinese, and Japanese vocabulary. This article would feel more complete if it explained the rules for phonetic correspondences between Chinese and Korean for Sino-Korean vocabulary (e.g. final in Middle Chinese becoming  in Korean, as in 物  → 물 ). I don't know of any reliable sources for this, though, so I would appreciate it if someone else added this information. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Where's the full citation for "Miyake 2004"?
I was looking for the original source for further reading. Where is it? These citations border on being useless. Mazamadao (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sino-Korean vocabulary


text:
Talk:Sohn Kee-chung

Untitled
"Chinese characters" changed to hanja. -- 12:14, 7 December 2006 203.217.79.192

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sohn Kee-chung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/competitions/competition/05/15/63/20090706014834_httppostedfile_p345-688_11303.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sohn Kee-chung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20130601193826/http%3A//en.beijing2008.cn/spirit/pastgames/halloffame/s/n214046800.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026105742/http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Athletes/All-Athletes/Athletes-SN-to-SZ/-KEE-CHUNG-SOHN-/ to http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Athletes/All-Athletes/Athletes-SN-to-SZ/-KEE-CHUNG-SOHN-/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Son in 1988.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sohn and Leni in Germany.jpg (discussion)
 * Sohn in 1935.jpg (discussion)

title: Talk:Sohn Kee-chung


text:
Talk:Songgwangsa

The coordinates of this temple are 35,00,08 north and 127,16,33 east. 122.38.247.25 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Songgwangsa


text:
Clave

Clave or claves may refer to:

Music

 * Clave (rhythm), a rhythmic pattern found in some Afro-Cuban Music
 * Claves, a percussion instrument
 * Claves Records, Swiss record label

Other

 * Clave (newspaper), a Dominican newspaper
 * Clave (Mexico City Metrobús), a BRT station in Mexico City
 * Claves, a fictional character in the video game Eternal Sonata

title: Clave


text:
Talk:South Chungcheong Province

Unclear
This: "The new district will be named Sejong Special Autonomous City, and is to replace Seoul as the future capital of the Republic of Korea. But, in 2009, the replaced Seoul as new national capital was violating South Korean Constitution by Constitution Court, and now Sejong City was only to be National Administrative Capital and Secondary capital alongside Seoul with representing about 36 government ministers and agencies, including Prime Minister office in 2015." needs to be put into proper English, but I'm not sure precisely what it is supposed to say. Kdammers (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Twin-sister (City)
Why is that section named sister city if it’s a province? PAper GOL (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Chungcheong Province


text:
Kestilä

Kestilä is a village and former municipality of Finland. It is located in the province of Oulu and is part of the Northern Ostrobothnia region.

Established in 1867, the population was 536 as of 31 December 2015. The municipality covered an area of 606.53 km2 of which 5.09 km2 is water.

The municipality was unilingually Finnish.

The municipality was consolidated with Piippola, Pulkkila and Rantsila on 2009-01-01 to form a new municipality of Siikalatva.

title: Kestilä


text:
Talk:South Hwanghae Province

Ŭnryul
Shouldn't it be romanised Ŭnnyul or Ŭllyul? Does the munhwaeo lack n-l assimilation? 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Hwanghae Province


text:
Talk:South Jeolla Province

Provincial Anthem
To the tune of Eureeka's Castle

'''Je-o-lla... Jeolla Province. Jeolla Province! Je-o-lla! (Gee, what a wonderful place to be!) Je-o-lla Province! Province! Province! Province! Province! Je-o-lla, Je-o-lla! Province! Pro-pro-pro-province! (tap) Je-o-lla Province!'''

Enclosed area
What is the area that is surrounded by this province? I didn't see it mentioned in the article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Gwangju. Found in template at the bottom of the page. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Jeolla Province


text:
Talk:Chaebol

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michaelsmani. Peer reviewers: Michaelsmani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article seems super biased
Just an example:

“15 August is recognized in South Korea as Liberation Day. This is when the president forgives the chairmen for their infractions to ensure they remain in power in their companies.” 76.94.201.10 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 * You're right, that sentence is pushing an agenda, I'll remove it. It doesn't reflect its reference. I'll give this article a more detailed look another day. toobigtokale (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the main picture of the article is biased... We need to represent the overall concept, not immediately show protests against it. toobigtokale (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorting in categories section not working.
When you sort by revenue, billions come before trillions due to a larger number in front. Zorblin (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Italicize?
Do we italicize the title and term, as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? It has about as common usage as hanbok imo, in that its use is generally limited to Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Zaibatsu is italicized fyi; I think we should italicize this too. toobigtokale (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually nvm, I may be wrong. List of English words of Korean origin shows that it's listed in several dictionaries. toobigtokale (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chaebol


text:
Talk:South Manchuria Railway

- added stub tag, hoping that someone will bring it up to the standard of the China Far East Railway article..

roncerito 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Stations?
What cities did this railroad connect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.180.182.145 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WWII?
I am amazed to see the complete lack of discussion here as to the role the Railway played in the origins of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The South Manchuria Railway, the tiny stretch of Japanese territory along it, the largely autonomous Kwantung Army, and the security concerns of both that Army and officials in Tokyo, were the crucial initiating factors in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. A "see also" section with no explanation is not sufficient. LordAmeth 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Disposition
This article needs information about what happened to the line(s) after 1945. What company took them over, and are they still in use? --NE2 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I partially answered my own question - the main/only line is now the Harbin-Dalian railway of China Railways. --NE2 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Manchuria Railway


text: Talk:Rapid transit in South Korea

title: Talk:Rapid transit in South Korea


text:
Talk:Suwon

Yeongtong
When did Yeongtong become a -gu? Yeongtong-dong was in Paldal-gu in my time. Progress? Surely not... Deiz 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is both a Yeongtong-dong and a Yeongtong-gu. Yeongtong-gu contains Yeongtong-dong and many other -dongs as well. I'll see if I can clarify this a little better. Michael Lindberg 19:32, 30 January 2006

The current Yeongtong-gu was indeed once apart of Paldal-gu but the new developments in Yeongtong grew too big and the city split Paldal-gu into two. I grew up in Maetan-2-dong which is now technically part of Yeongtong-gu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.33.110 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing links
I propose that the external links to the Galbijim wiki and teaching English blog be removed. Does anyone second that? JPBarrass 18:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no-one seems to be of any opinion, I will go ahead and delete them. JPBarrass 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted Galbijim's link, as many pages now seem to include these. JPBarrass 13:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous People
This list includes people, e.g. Ha Ji Won, who are listed in their own articles as being born elsewhere. I think citations may be needed throughout, but wonder if any more fluent Korean-speaking Wikipedian than I could check the list first. Thanks. JPBarrass 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review
This article has a good start. However, there are several problems with the article.
 * Not enough references
 * Expand on the history section
 * expand on the culture section

Overall, this article needs some more information in it. Other than that, the organization and pictures are superior. Good friend100 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
Errm, since Goodfriend didn't really give a verdict or a hold or tag the WP:GAN page, I'll put something explicit in here.
 * This article falls far below the WP:GA?
 * The article is quite short, especially for a city of 1 million people. Prose of 7kb is really quite short.
 * The article lacks references
 * The history section needs to tell us when and how the city was formed and how it evolved. At the moment it only says that it was a failed candidate to be the captial of Korea. The city is no doubt the subject of wars in the past. During the Korean War it would have changed hands since the DPRK occupied the south right down to the southern coast.
 * Lead needs to be expanded and making the second sentence about a football club that is only 11 years old seems like undue weight
 * Source required for infobox stats
 * Too many one line sections. These need to be merged with other sections, unless they are expanded, which they should be,
 * Many one line paragraphs need to be expanded or merged.
 * Industry is not covered at all in this article
 * Governance has no coverage in this article.
 * Toilets shoul dnot have its own section
 * Newspapers and media are not covered

Overall, I recommend looking at other cities which are GA or FA, eg, see Bangalore to see what is expected.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wangsong Reservoir in Suwon?
Just wanted to get some opinions on this before I go changing it. I bike around the Wangsong reservoir most mornings (I live pretty close to it), and it does not seem to be within the Suwon area, at least according to the signs on the roads. Coming home from the reservoir, there is a sign that marks the beginning of Suwon about 200-300 meters south of the southernmost tip, so to me it seems that the entire reservoir is located pretty safely within the area of Uiwang.

I have an official city map at home, so I will re-check the borders once I have some time. Baeksu (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Checked the map, and indeed Wangsong is located wholly outside the northern border of Suwon. I'm removing it from the list. Baeksu (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I have taken the liberty of reinstating Wangsong, as the border between Suwon and Uiwang is the stream which enters Wangsong Reservoir near the dam from the east. The border then continues just north of the dam (in the water), as you may confirm when conparing maps.naver.com's superior mapping of waterways with local.daum.net's addition of city boundaries (when zoomed some way out).  I hope that clears things up.  :)  JPBarrass (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

my think about suwon wikipedia
i think "information is short in suwon wikipedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotpdud (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

--Gotpdud (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Supposed English Name
"known by its English name Suigen". I have never once seen this used as a name for Suwon. It looks like some name dredged out of a nineteenth or early twentieth century source, and in any case mis-represents the Korean pronunciation. If by "English" is meant merely "By UK speakers," then it should say that, and not imply the totality of global English speakers. I will delete unless a rationale can be provided for the supposed name, or amend, so that it says, "Which once was known as, or which used to be known as...." etc etc. Theonemacduff (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Suigen" is the Japanese reading of the Chinese characters used to write "Suwon". It is not an English name. I will delete it. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the edit. Good job. Theonemacduff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Samsung HQ in suwon.jpg

title: Talk:Suwon


text: Talk:Taebaek

title: Talk:Taebaek


text: Talk:Taebong

title: Talk:Taebong


text:
Hans Corell

Hans Axel Valdemar Corell (born July 7, 1939) is a Swedish lawyer and diplomat. Between March 1994 and March 2004 he was Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations. In this capacity, he was head of the Office of Legal Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat.

Before joining the United Nations in 1994, Corell was an Ambassador and Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular Affairs in the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Hans Corell graduated with a Master of Laws at Uppsala University. He currently sits on the advisory board of The International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life at Brandeis University and on the boards of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association and the International Science Programme. He was chairman of the board of trustees of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Lund University from 2006 to 2012.

The Crimes Against Humanity Initiative
Corell is on the Steering Committee of The Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, launched in 2008 by the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute to study the need for a comprehensive convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, analyze the necessary elements of such a convention, and draft a proposed treaty. The proposed treaty is now being debated before the UN International Law Commission.

World Justice Project
Hans Corell serves as an Honorary Co-Chair for the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project works to lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.

Lectures
The Role of a Legal Adviser of an International Organization in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

title: Hans Corell


text:
Talk:Temple name

Untitled
This article is valuable in its own right, despite lack of references. But, where do temple names of commoners go? Pawyilee 09:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's the difference?
"They should not be confused with era names. Compared to posthumous names, the use of temple names is more exclusive. Both titles were given after death to an emperor or king, but unlike the often elaborate posthumous name, a temple name always consists of only two characters"

These sentences need more work. They are confusing. I couldn't understand what temple name is after all. Is temple name also given after death or is it given on some other occasion? What does the 3rd sentence above mean by "both titles"--"era name and posthumous name" or "posthumous name and temple name". Gantuya eng (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also certain sentence structure was not only confusing but unintelligible, "At earlier time only rulers performed have temple names" Ur-loki (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2011

title: Talk:Temple name


text:
Talk:Three Jewels Temples

I have restored this article a modified version of the way it was on 15 September 2004. This means restoring the Buddhism category box and the original, non-templated name table. So that the boxes are not quite as obtrusive, I have narrowed the name table's width so that there is more room for text. -Sewing - talk 15:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Three Jewels Temples


text:
Talk:Three Kingdoms of Korea

Archaeological evidence of the start of KTK period
This article is informative, has many strengths, and hits on a lot of the main points that one would want to mention about the Three Kingdoms. Yet Wikipedia articles should aim to be more balanced than this one. This article is biased too much toward historical interpretations that have very little basis in archaeological evidence. One startling example is the claim that highly developed state level societies had formed on the Korean peninsula before A.D. 0.

Archaeologists apply a set of strict theoretical guidelines derived from anthropology, ethnology, analogy, and ethnohistory to the concept of what defines a state-level society. For example the presence of urban centres (especially capitals), monumental architecture, ostentatious burials, writing or recording systems, bureaucracy, demonstrated political control of geographical areas that are usually larger in area than a single river valley, etc make up some of these correlates.

The best evidence from the vast archaeological record in Korea indicates that states formed on the Korean peninsula between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300/400. It is during this 'protohistoric' period that it is possible to find evidence of a few of these archaeological correlates. However, archaeologists are not prepared to suggest that this means there were states in the B.C. era. It is some time in the 4th century A.D. (A.D. 300-400) that many of the correlates of state societies coalesce to the point that state-level societies can be confidently identified using the copious and incredibly rich data provided by the many excavations that have taken place in Korea since the mid-20th century.

It may be possible to claim 'states' existed before A.D. 0, however, provided that some indication is given that one is referring to the the East Asian intellectual concept of guk (국 or 國) that is still actively discussed in the discipline of HISTORY. Guk is not the same as anthropological and archaeologically defined 'state-level societies'. For example, these are more similar to complex chiefdoms or even the Lee Ki-baek-esque "wall-town states". However, if this is the case in the current version of the text, it should be more clearly expressed.

We should be more critical of the textual evidence that is presented in the Samguk Yusa and Samguk Sagi. These texts are indispensibly useful and wonderful, but we should see those texts for what they really are.

My intention is not to upset the hard-working contributors who are doing an excellent job in the wonderful task of bringing Korean early history to the Wikiworld. I simply suggest that the article be re-written in parts to provide an archaeological perspective that exists alongside of the original historical perspective.

Sorry for the long-winded text.

Mumun 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi 삼국시대 꾼들,

 * Further to the above statement, I am currently in preparation of a new section that I would like to add on to this article. I would like to base it exclusively on archaeological evidence and make it brief but informative. Hundreds of excavations, many of them on a large-scale, are changing the face of what we know about the Three Kingdoms. This is a good thing largely because excavations act as a supplement to what we already know and can help us create a Braudelian 'thick description'. For example, major strides have been made in a new understanding of industrial-scale production of pottery, roof-tiles, and figurines in Silla. Additionally, as many of you are aware, the 신라왕경 (the heart of the Silla capital) is in in the process of being excavated, step-by-step year-by-year. It's going to take me a while to get things down to a tight paragraph, but in the meantime if their are any comments or suggestions, please leave them here or on my talk page. --Mumun 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started to add an archaeological perspectives section. I hope to add stuff about industrial sites, 5th and 6th century burials (and thus tie in with Heavenly Horse Tomb and many others), and other stuff. Not totally complete yet. Feel free to add! Mumun 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Great stuff! More please... Would be wonderful to have a whole full-length article surveying this topic. -- Visviva 15:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo and Baekje Languages, Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean?
Regarding the statement that mentioned all 3 states sharing the same culture and language, it is useful to note that linguists have shown with the limited available evidence that the extinct Goguryeo language is cognate with Old Japanese, but no corresponding relationship has been established with the Korean language which derived from that of Silla. We also know that Goguryeo and Baekje both claimed descent from the old state of Buyeo, and that Baekje not only has ethnic similarities with Goguryeo but also has extensive links with Japan. It is entirely possible that All the 3 states of Goguryo, Baekje and Yamato Japan are all old Japonic states, and that modern Korea derived from Silla, which is ethnically more distant. As such it would also provide a good explanation of Japanese roots - i.e. that they really did come from the Korean peninsular. However, they were not the descendants of the present-day Koreans of Silla but rather descendants and cousins of the defunct states of Goguryeo and Baekje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeoic-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that the Japanese-like toponymes (place names) found in the central part of Korean peninsula don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language on the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
 * None of the Japanese-like toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated.
 * Some Japanese-like toponymes (such as Japanese-like numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in southern part of Korean peninsula. Jagello (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new small states which gradually developed into the Three Kingdoms of Korea, on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples.
 * Jagello (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Three Kingdoms of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110614021313/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?VOLUMENO=43&BOOKNUM=4&PAPERNUM=2 to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?VOLUMENO=43&BOOKNUM=4&PAPERNUM=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Two issues, although archive.org is okay, but (1) the bot added tags which were not picked up by the, and (2) apparently the cited site had a restructure of urls, and instead of using archive.org, merely repairing the  with the current correct url would seem to be better.   WurmWoode  T   21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Three Kingdoms of Korea
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Three Kingdoms of Korea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "chosun": From Samhan:  From North Korea and weapons of mass destruction:  From Korean Wave: Korean Cultural Exports Still Booming, The Chosun Ilbo From Chuseok: Chosun Ilbo,2010, September 22 From Korean sword: Ancient Art of Korea. Swords in Chosun Kingdom

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope of article
Hi @Dallcomm, I saw your edits and wanted to open up a general discussion about the scope of the article. Specifically, whether the article should be primarily about the period or the three kingdoms themselves.

Opening by saying I have no strong preference btw, just wanted to get your thoughts. I assumed the article was about the period because of the "About" template on the top of the page ("This article is about the time period in Korea.") I didn't add that template in myself btw.

My current thought is that the article should be primarily about the period and not about the three kingdoms themselves. Several reasons:

toobigtokale (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The Three Kingdoms article for China is about the period
 * 2) The scope of the body of the article reads to me like it's about the period, and not like a list of each kingdom or a comparison between the kingdoms.
 * 3) The kingdoms already have their own individual articles.
 * 4) I'd argue having an article for the period is higher priority than having an article for the three states

 * 1. What another article does shouldn't matter imo. Each Wikipedia article should be its own thing. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#What_about_other_content?
 * 2. I don't see it that way at all. Also, the body is clearly a work in progress and requires a lot of work still.
 * 3. As they should. Sorry, I don't see why that matters. I don't see why there can't be, for example, a "History of the Three Kingdoms period" article or a "Timeline of the Three Kingdoms period" article if you want to focus on the period.
 * 4. This article should be an overview imo, like a central hub, and it should be about the kingdoms AND the period imo. The chronology of the period itself is debated btw. That's why I added the period is "traditionally" dated from yadda yadda. Dallcomm (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see how it could be made to focus on both; we should start by removing the "This article is about the time period in Korea" at the top. Again I have no strong feelings, but wanted to document the discussion here. Based on the original writing of the lead and that template I think others had different expectations. toobigtokale (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Date range?
I don't know much about ancient Korean history; can someone put at least an approx date range for the time period in the first paragraph of the lead and in the short description? toobigtokale (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 * This issue still stands toobigtokale (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Three Kingdoms of Korea