Jump to content

Tripitaka Koreana: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

6 July 2024

5 July 2024

1 May 2024

26 April 2024

27 March 2024

2 March 2024

29 February 2024

27 February 2024

6 February 2024

4 February 2024

28 December 2023

2 November 2023

10 October 2023

27 September 2023

19 September 2023

7 August 2023

27 July 2023

15 June 2023

  • curprev 12:4512:45, 15 June 2023Metuselth talk contribs 24,074 bytes +44 Clarified language somewhat. I think drawing attention to the fact that each woodblock is a "page" is important to Western readers, since we generally measure the length of books in "pages" rather than in scrolls (卷) or characters. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 12:3312:33, 15 June 2023Metuselth talk contribs 24,030 bytes −2 Changed the word "volume" to "book", as this is a less misleading translation of 卷. Other acceptable translations would be "chapter" or "scroll". undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

15 November 2022

  • curprev 22:3222:32, 15 November 2022SimaDC2022 talk contribs 24,032 bytes −266 The original sentence mentioned bowing each time the Korean alphabet was written, despite the fact that the Korean alphabet Hangul was created in 1443, or more than 150 years after the Mongol invasion. I strongly recommend deleting this anachronism. undo

8 October 2022

30 September 2022

29 September 2022

27 September 2022

27 August 2022

7 August 2022

20 February 2022

10 February 2022

25 January 2022

24 December 2021

25 November 2021

23 October 2021

25 July 2021

  • curprev 17:1017:10, 25 July 2021123.111.45.247 talk 22,444 bytes +362 Like so many Wiki entries on Korea this one is distorted and ill-informed. Saying the building is "notable for its scientific design" is either a lie an incorrect guess. Also, the source linked is of a copy of the book (the link is a book) that has limited pages available. Also, the linked book does not come close to describing the building as "notable for its scientific design" and even if it did, again -it did not- it would be an opinion of once source and should have said so. undo

12 June 2021

15 April 2021

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)