Jump to content

Talk:Hwacha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.99.63.125 (talk) at 14:30, 29 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Origin

The hwacha was initally developed in China and later transferred to Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.34.168 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 October 2005

Can you source it please?HappyApple 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any continuity between the Hwacha technology and 20th century Katyusha (invented in Russia during WWII). Did the russians reinvent the multiple rocket launcher, or did they merely convert an older technology?

Hwacha in games

I think we need this to be deleted. (Wikimachine 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why do you think so? Pedant 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making this article more professional

Here are things I fixed.

  • Incorrect Grammar. Some people try to edit even when they can't speak English.
  • Elongating English. Some people try to make the words fancy because they can't write well in the first place.
  • Confusing format. History & description are already in the introductory paragraph. But there is another section called Description. (sigh)
  • Repetitive contents. The article is lengthening and repetitive. What bothers me the most is how there's a picture of Hwacha in real life & another in game.
  • Reference to media/game. See Encyclopedia Britannica. See Encarta. See any encyclopedia. See if they have games. If you are obsessed with games, don't write here..
  • Stub. This is a stub. I can see that there has been much effort by the Wikipedians to make it to be like an article. Yes. This is a very interesting and important subject. But, I would say do some more research.

Good wishes to all. I don't mean any offense, but I am frustrated. (Wikimachine 05:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I hope all your personal frustration dont be reflected in the article. :) , by the way, i have seen many articles that includes references in popular culture (i.e, Trebuchet) i dont see how this can affect to the professionalism you are claiming. By the way, what do you mean by "fancy"?. I think this is a collaborative effort made by people who wish this article and others to be better day and day. If you have oranges, make a juice with them :) --HappyApple 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing fancy now because I fixed them. But really long English is what I'm pointing out.

Instead of saying "Hwacha could fire around 100 arrows", some people say something like "The number of arrows that could be fired by the instrument of Hwacha reached or exceed that of 100." (Wikimachine 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)) So, could I delete the popular culture section? Having a popular culture section just to discuss about it seems far fetched. Let's dismiss it with a few sentences or so in the introduction. (Wikimachine 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I reverted. I noticed that somebody had reverted my edits. Unacceptable. (Wikimachine 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Professional yes, less info no way

  • I am not sure why User:Wikimachine insists on deleting information regarding to description and popular culture references, many other articles about guns and historical weapons have it, Why this cant have it?. I have changed some specifically sensitive words like Korean Empire to Choson dynasty to avoid some sort of bias towards to some culture or another, although isn't Korean Empire a synonym of Chosun dynasty?.
  • This revert should not be considered as a personal point of view or whim, rather as an attempt to follow the same pattern used in another historical guns and weapons here at Wikipedia.
  • Professionalism can't be pushed or impossed and even suggesting words, like "If you like games..." or "Encarta or Britannica doesnt have this or that..", or talking about "Personal frustrations...".
  • By the way, why Category: Weapons of Korea and Category:Rockets and missiles are being deleted consecutively?. Doesn't them fit on this article?. --HappyApple 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my revert for following reasons:

The version that I reverted to has correct grammars because that's how fixed it. The current version is terrible.

Also, I suggested dismissing popular culture section in a sentence or two. If you want to add something about popular culture, put a sentence summarizing the infos. (Wikimachine 13:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok. I saw the revert. IT'S COMPLETELY POV.

Chosn Dynasty emerged victorious over Japan. I myself is Korean, but this is too FANCY and POV. I repeat, if you want to have infos about popular culture, add a sentence summarizing it. We don't need an entire section on popular culture. (Wikimachine 13:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE, GAME MANIACS GO AWAY

You see how awkward it is to have a section dedicated to games in the end? This isn't even infos, buddy. Especially in such a short article. I tried to moderate it, but it just looks so bad.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in museums? This is what I mean by fancy. Unnecessary but long, as to look professional and official.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in national parks? People just want to mention games. They get excited, don't they. Why don't they play games all their life and not edit in Wikipedia, then.

I say delete it.

Then is it logical to have a game section in guise as popular culture for William the Conqueror? Admiral Yi?

I agree Oyo321 15:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles have a pop culture trivia, and not even this, if you see Trebuchet and Piltdown man they also have it.
  • "Choson Dynasty emerged victorious over Japan": Isn't this true?. Didn't Koreans won the Imjin war and didn't them defeated Japan by the use of their navy?. Please, dont exagerate the words, obviously this sentence is politically and historically correct and not POV as your claim.
  • Politeness: I would ask you to please avoid the word "maniac" on this discussion and also "go away" terms. As you can see this is a forum, not a place to impose your own point of view.
  • Sections and subheadings: As the article keeps growing, why deleting information that is relevant such as the rare material used to build this weapon and a description of its use, and how was involved on events, and Why not? A pop culture trivia reference section?. It seems you are deleting information in aims to let the article as a stub. A self contradictory behaviour as you are claiming this article should be out from stub.
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy: We can't just go and making votes over there on What's better?, to have less sections, to delete games and so on. This is not the way how Wikipedia works.
    • Here an excerpt: In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.
  • Decisions are addressed and discussed properly so we can go to an agreement.
  • I am in favor to start to work on an article that has sections instead reducing its content by stating words like "fancy", or missunderstanding terms or even stating, "bad english".
  • I am reverting the article to start working on what we have. I believe we can make a good article and expanding it instead reducing its content.--HappyApple 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very sorry if you were offended. But doesn't no way and go away rhyme? Let me tell you that it was never meant to be accusation.
  • Choson Dynasty emerged is unnecessary. We are writing POV and straight, plain fact-English. Plus, a reader can click on the Imjin War link to find out more about it.
  • It's VERY repetitive for the article to describe Hwacha in the introduction and then have a separate section for description.
  • Please, I don't get scared by democracy junk here. I've been here long enough, and I'm a debater. Indeed, Wikipedia is democracy. After we talk in discussion (which has been going on for a long time now, about 3 months?), we vote for community consensus.
  • I repeat, to have a section dedicated to game and "popular culture" (bingrae) is idiocratic. Just because those other articles are ruined doesn't mean that you can justify your action with those examples. In fact, I don't even need to have this discussion that is so obvious.
  • This article has one of the most incorrect grammars. Some people who think they know something come here and randomly change things.
  • Hwachas were essentially one, if not the first, practical multiple rocket launching mobile pad ever made. Not only is this incorrect and has no base to support this claim, it is in wrong grammar.
  • All the machinery was built entirely of wood. This also has no warrant. Pretty much personal opinion. And to me, this is unnecessary junk.
  • It is unclear which wood was used to build Hwachas, but most historians agree pine was used throughout Asia from 14th to 17th centuries in the contruction of weaponry Again, it has no reference. It should be "...most historians agree that pine..." and "...agree that Asian weapons throughout the 14th and 17th century were generally out of pine..."
  • It is likely Pinus koraiensis the Korean variety of Pine, might be used as raw material to build them. Complete bogus. No warrant. Wrong grammar.
  • Just to tell you, "Conflicts and Wars" is pretty must unnecessary elongation. In fact, it was NEVER USED OTHER THAN IN THE Imjin War. Another thing is how that section flip flops between Imjin War and Seven Years War.
  • "Hwachas had a profound impact in Korean culture as an effect of the Seven-Year War". I think that as an effect of the Seven-Year War is a perfect example of the "professional Wikipedians" (lol).
  • "Hwachas have appeared specially in many computer games;" especially, not specially.
  • I seriously hope that these edits were not made by our happy friend here.
  • I am calling an administrator to get this issue settled, dear.

(Wikimachine 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The consensus process does not depend upon a vote, rather it depends upon consent. Wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is it a feudal system where it is appropriate to stake out your territory and defend it... wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if you have a disagreement with how an article is written, then discussion is necessary, but voting is unnecessary. Any conflict that any editor has is a result of that editor not having engaged in appropriate discussion.

If your reasons for including or for excluding a piece of text are valid, you will be able to support your position and your edits will be stable. If your edits are not stable you must improve them to the standards we all have consensually agreed upon: facts belong in wikipedia if there is a reference source to support them, and if the information is relevant. Removing information without consensus is not collaboration.

If it is truly your intent to be a productive part of this project, you must learn how to create a consensus supporting your edits, or create edits that fit the consensus which has been previously reached. If it is not your intent to be a productive part of this project, write a book or do some other form of project which does not require discussion, consensus and collaboration. The wikipedia community insists on cooperation and if you cannot cooperate, you cannot participate. This is a consensus that the community has reached. Pedant 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is perceived this vote may be invalid. For more information see: Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Support for obvious reasons above. (Wikimachine 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Support Not sure if I can trust games to depict hwachas and stuff. Oyo321 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The more information, the better. If someone played a game that involved Hwachas, and wanted to learn more about it, this page should contain as much information on it as possible, including popular culture references, so that person could play other games that involved Hwachas. --Youthinkyouknowsomethinghuh 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just so long as the information is kept at a basic level and doesn't describe the hwacha in the game extensively. People should know how popular hwachas are in games and in Korea.

Oppose There are numerous game references in wikipedia articles, and articles about games which have references to information that is outside the scope of the game... and as long as it is factual and relevant it belongs. Remember wikipedia is not paper and more information is better than less information. Please let us use cooperative effort and not wikilawyering. A stable edit is a good edit, let us all try to write in a way that will allow us to move beyond these petty squabbles over crumbs, don't remove information, improve on the writing. This is the biggest and best collaboration humans have ever participated in, try to be proud of your ability to work together: rather than trying to argue, try to reach an agreement together. Pedant 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hwacha-Korean

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

Hey Oyo321! It's already clear that Hwacha is Korean. Saying it's Korean weapon of Korean origin wouldn't be its purpose.

The reason why I put Chinese & Korean origin is b/c singijeon, which is Chinese origin, is launched by Hwacha. It's unfair to credit only the Koreans because fire arrow, which includes singijeon, was widespread in Asia. Since you disagree, I will just say it's Korean weapon. (Wikimachine 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok guys

Ok, HappyApple and Wikimachine stop arguing. The Hwacha article can be very stable if we just work together.

Firstly, about the game section. I agree that Hwacha's should be noted for their use in games. However the section should be kept at a basic level and not detailed. Also there shouldn't be any game ads stained all over the article itself.

It is true that the hwacha is an ingenious invention, much more different than the Chinese one and a lot better than the Chinese one too. Hwacha's are Korean and Korea developed it. Good friend100 23:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive edits

I edited the entire article. The games section is ok the way it is since it doesn't describe how hwachas are used in games. I suggest a picture of a hwacha from a game wouldn't hurt since pictures make articles a lot better. Good friend100 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued the work that Good friend100 started a couple of days ago, and i expanded the subsections and i properly referenced each paragraph as suggested by user:Wikimachine, i also suggest to stop arguing and work to make this article improve. I hope all my contributions can be nicely welcomed :-) --HappyApple 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Asian history so I cannot contribute new material, but I am very pleased we have so many knowledgeable people willing to work on articles in a language that is not their native tongue. When this article becomes more stable, I would be happy to work on improving the English and grammar. If anyone would like me to look over any other similar articles, to improve the grammar so that it reads well in English, please let me know. Thanks to all of you for a very interesting article.Pedant 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese military support

To the editor who posted Chinese Military support

The hwacha in several ways is similiar to the Chinese one. BUT the hwacha is purely Korean and it is not a copy. It was designed and created by Korean engineering. Good friend100 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job! Now onto the Reference

This is absolutely amazing! (more amazing if you would delete the last section on popular culture)

But about references and notes, what are the differences between them? I say we merge them.

This is absolutely amazing. (Wikimachine 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The removal of games

There was a bit of uncertainty as to why I have been going around removing games from many articles. It is because I feel the games are irrelevant to the articles I have removed them from. I feel these references to games should be moved to the games article it self and instead of saying this place, object or weapon is featured in this game, the game's article should say it features this place, this object or weapon.

Although a Hwacha is relevant to the game, the game is not relevant to a Hwacha and the game should not be mentioned here.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue about removing games from Hwacha has been already discussed so far, and i even contacted an Advocate to solve this apparent dispute caused by user:Wikimachine, and according to my advocate among other users, "There are numerous game references in wikipedia articles, and articles about games which have references to information that is outside the scope of the game... and as long as it is factual and relevant it belongs. Remember wikipedia is not paper and more information is better than less information. Please let us use cooperative effort and not wikilawyering." --HappyApple 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think games in general should not be refered to in most articles. So I disagree with the argument that games are already refered to in many articles and thus it is alright for this article to reference a game. Two or more wrongs does not make a right and I think game references in this article and many other articles is wrong. The game's own article should reference this article and any other article. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional. References should complement to each other, like Brownian motion and Tyndall effect, and i feel games are part of it. And i dont think that there is two or more wrongs make a right, i see it as a wikicommunity consensus which in fact sees articles open to editors to expand sections rather than minimizing its content or restricting topics.--HappyApple 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But again, I strongly disagree. Information should not be bidirectional simply because one article references another article, the other article should reference the first article. Wikipedia is not a link exchange. As for a wikicommunity consensus, I am taking this up as a policy change on the village pump. I strongly believe game references should be removed. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general concensus is this is non-notable, but I admit this is a split between those who say it is and those who say it isn't. But this also falls under a policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia is not a software directory and what was removed was a list of games, a directory, which featured this weapon. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still advocate the removal of game section. I think it's ridiculous. (Wikimachine 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Excuse me. I know you disagree with the removal, but it is a directory of games that feature a Hwacha as a unit. It is policy that Wikipedia is not a directory, so the section should be deleted as a matter of policy. It was more than justified, but you have not justified in the talk page why it is not a directory. Infact, you haven't answered my reasoning at all. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You thinking it is ridiculous doesn't make it against policy, the ridiculous is in your head, not in the policy, its an opinion and you just don't delete based on opinion. You don't remove data unless it's irrelevant, or unverifiable, not according to policy. This isn't a directory of software, it's a paragraph in the section relating the ancient weapon Hwacha to other significant cultural artifacts. If these games were not significant, they would not have articles on wikipedia, and if this was a mere directory it would be different... It's very common to mention references to popular culture in any number of different articles, and this does not fall under under the policy you cite, which I am posting here to be certain you read it:

Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example.
  2. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project, and Wikitree for a project that aims to be the family tree of the human race. Wikipedia is not the white pages.
  3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. See Yellowikis for a project with that goal.

see here

I am reinstating the text. There's no reason to keep deleting this material. When you delete something controversial, its customary to move it to the talk page and discuss it... this is a discussion, that is turning into a dispute. Let's resolve it between us rather than escalate to more formal procedures which would have the same result. If you have a reason to delete it, show me a policy that really says its justifiableto remove it, and if you can't, I am going to have to agree that this text should stay. This edit war has gone on long enough, let's end it. A vote was called and it seems that support for inclusion ran about double to support for exclusion, no real consensus, but policy is clear, and the policy does have consensus. You have to abide by policy if you want to go forward with work on the encyclopedia, it doesn't work any other way. If you disagree with the policy, edit the policy page and see how welcome your changes are. User:Pedant 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry it came to an edit war, but I tried to bring it up for discussion, which failed because two parties must partake in a discussion and I was the only voice here except for the rare comment. I do disregard edit summeries because I do not think edit summaries equate valid comments on their own when the material is disputed. There should be talk page comments to further explain the reasoning behind a disputed edit and a person should reply to other's reasoning even when they are not editing the article. I am more than willing to discuss policy and relevance and how relevant the section in question is, if there is someone who cares to dispute and actually discuss it here instead of simply reverting it with the edit summary being the sole forum of reasoning. This btw is how an edit war starts, when the only medium used by one or more parties is the edit summary.
I would rather quote essays than policy. Essays help interpetation of policy and is further from wikilawyering. I quoted several essays above. One key essay is Wikipedia:fancruft. It states basicly, fancruft is relevant only to a small portion of wikipedias population. Although not a reason for deletion by it self, it does support deletion of the section. The section itself is also poorly written. One such example is this: They also appear in Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. The sentence is short, does not explain any context except to say it is featured. Such a line would better fit in a database or list of games that feature this weapon. Even then, why say The also appear in instead of just listing the game? One can also write a list by saying The appear in: (a list of games). This too would be a type of directory. Also, it is not abnormal to delete such lists, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_computer_and_video_games_that_use_Bink_video is one example. Plus, why is one game not worthy of being mentioned in connection to this game while others are not?
Also, I would like to change the perspective. Right now, we are looking for reasons to delete it, but I would like to look for reasons to include it, as if it were not added yet but someone thinks it should be. Please explain how it is relevant to the weapon. Explain how the information is notable and how is it interesting. If no solid reasons can be found, then the inclusion of the games should not have happened and that is enough reason to remove the games now.
Thank you for a timely reply. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pendant, I think there are many people who would vote nay to the inclusion of a advertising bit of a minor reference to an object in even a significant game. If the reference was a major one, fine, but it appears as one unit among dozens/hundreds. It's verifiable that they use guns and knives in many, many games--should they all be listed in the corresponding pop culture sections? How about a list of all the movies where characters are shown with money in the article on money? These might sound ridiculous--and there might still be an argument for keeping the section in this article--but what exactly would the criteria be? Do we set an arbitrary number and include references if it's beneath that? Then do they all disappear when that one more game is found that uses it?
It seems that the people on this talk page (which make up at this point over 50% of the people weighing in) would not be in favor of it. Perhaps a request for comments is in order? That followed by another informal vote might get a consensus going--one way or the other. —LactoseTIT 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RfC would be the fairest course of action since starting an actual discussion has been a trying matter. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a suitable format for an RfC section on an article discussion page.

It is not just listing a game. The games section can show how the hwacha is used in popular culture and helps the reader know more about it. I am pretty sure hwacha would have to be popular and strong enough to make it to games like Civilation or Empires. Good friend100 11:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We already had this discussion before. The games section is not ridiculous or a stain. The section can help the article in showing the hwacha's popularity and usage. I believe as long as the section is short and brief it is ok. Good friend100

Check the Samurai article. At the end there is an extremely long and informative section of "Popular Culture". It looks like a list and it looks bad to me. I think the popular culture section can be kept brief while adding hwacha's usage in movies or books as well. Good friend100 11:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion or exclusion of games from the article Hwacha

This is a dispute about if or not games that feature the weapon, a Hwacha, should be mentioned in this article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional. References should complement to each other, like Brownian motion and Tyndall effect, and i feel games are part of it. --User:HappyApple 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Information should not be bidirectional simply because one article references another article, the other article should reference the first article. Wikipedia is not a link exchange. --User:OrbitOne 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The general concensus is this is non-notable, but I admit this is a split between those who say it is and those who say it isn't. But this also falls under a policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia is not a software directory and what was removed was a list of games, a directory, which featured this weapon. --User:OrbitOne 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't remove data unless it's irrelevant, or unverifiable, not according to policy. This isn't a directory of software, it's a paragraph in the section relating the ancient weapon Hwacha to other significant cultural artifacts. If these games were not significant, they would not have articles on wikipedia, and if this was a mere directory it would be different... It's very common to mention references to popular culture in any number of different articles... --User:Pedant 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Comments from User:HappyApple's advocate

User:HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language and has requested an advocate's assistance so that the user may be clearly understood. User:HappyApple believes that established policy supports inclusion of the text in question, in part because of the following points:

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

other comments

Concensus vote

I think the general concensus is to delete that section, so let us take a second vote and add that onto the previous vote and see what the concensus is. But it is non-binding if it is proven the section is covered by policy one way or another, but this is to make those who oppose the deletion happy. In the previous vote, it was Two for deletion and Three against. OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes re: second vote

  1. Consensus (a guideline) does not override policy , the policy is that material that is verifiably factual and relevant to the topic is included. The use of consensus is a guideline, see: Wikipedia:Consensus
  2. Votes do not determine consensus, see the guideline: vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate (Wp:consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority)
  3. In any case, the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previos vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines. A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, which is clear.
  4. Persistent unwarranted deletion of this material will result in an unnecessary drain on the wikipedian community at large through escalation to formal dispute resolution processes, such as WP:RfC, WP:Mediation, and WP:Arbitration, as user HappyApple has already attempted informal resolution as required by policy. User:Pedant 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (acting as HappyApple's advocate)[reply]

Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game.

  1. Consensus (a guideline) does not override policy , thus the concensus reached before hand does not override policy stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Although a concensus is a guide line, if the section is a indiscriminate collection of information, such as games that features this weapon without explaining how this game is signifigant, or a software directory, no matter how it is writen up, policy demands it be deleted despite concensus to keep the section.
you cannot have it both ways: It needs to be deleted because it is incomplete/and/it needs to be cut back. Are you saying it needs to be bigger or are you saying it needs to be smaller? The section isn't what is meant in the policy re directories, go read it and see. User:Pedant 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The foundation of this test of concensus is a disagreement. Wikimachine, LactoseTI, Haukurth and I feel the section should be cut back or outright deleted. You (Pendant), HappyApple and Good friend100 disagree with this. I agree though, vote counting is not a good solution, but since most comments in opposition have been made in the edit summary when the article is reverted with what I think is a refusal by opposing parties to use the talk page, I see no other solution at this time.
  2. A vote for keeping does not have an absolute cutoff date for voting, nor does it have a precedence for any amount of time. I feel the concensus has changed since then. So I have not mischaracterised the previous vote.
How do you figure that representing that a 2-3 vote in favor of keeping is a consensus to delete is not mischaracterising the vote? Answer that in any meaningful way and I will eat a bug.User:Pedant
  1. I stated, I am willing to talk about the issue on this talk page, but it requires more than I myself to have a discussion about keeping it or not. Persistent revertions is also a drain on the wikipedia community and if there is to be an expection that I respect HappyApple's opinion, then he must come here onto the talk page and discuss the issue, otherwise his opinion of concensus or relevance, when stated in the edit summary and only in the edit summary, can and will fairly be ignored.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where you tried to discuss this before deleting the section? HappyApple has explained his position to me, and feels he is not being listened to, I am here to represent HappyApple, discussing this with me is like discussing this with HappyApple. If you want an advocate, get one, they are free, and available to anyone who needs one. I agree if what you are saying is that there is no consensus, because there is no consensus. If you want to bring this to an RfC, and are unwilling to discuss this further, you first must find someone willing to certify that you have attempted to resolve this through discussion. Get that and take it to an RfC if you think that's appropriate. I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm just here to make sure everyone gets a chance to be heard. User:Pedant 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Delete For stated reasons above. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep As long as information it is descriptive and accurate it should be included on the article, also inter-article sources complement to each other and they should be "bidirectional" , not "monodirectional" and Why do they appear in so many articles such as Trebuchets, and so on? the wikipedia community have seen this contribution useful and had been there on the articles for long time as concensus. And finally talking about numbers only '4.68%' of the whole article talks about the games, it is less than 5 percent, in a paragraph (four to five lines) which only includes examples where this siege weapon is found.--HappyApple 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep this material as entirely consistent with policy and established wikipedia-wide consensus User:Pedant 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete per recent discussion on village pump, which seems to show a different Wikipedia consensus from the one Pendant in which seems to believe (lest someone start adding lists of games and movies to the Revolver article that do little more than include revolvers in among dozens of other weapons) I would suggest if something really comes out about hwachas rather than a game that includes it among "all weapons" there might be consideration to add it. —LactoseTIT 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Delete For stated reasons above. (Wikimachine 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  6. Keep As long as information is not too long and just brief it is a good addition to this article. Check the Samurai article. It is overloaded on the "Popular Culture" section. It just helps how popular the hwacha is today. Good friend100 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keep If people invest effort in adding information on pop culture references to an article, then their contribution should be respected. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club run by intelligentsia Matt 11:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments copied from my talk page:

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

Hwacha

I can accept you will act as HappyApple's advocate, but let me make things clear. I will not resort to mud slinging and I request you do the same. A statement you made was inappropriate and had little to do with policy regarding the section in question. Here is the section in question.

"In any case, the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previos vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines. A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, which is clear."

Although unorthadox, I wished to meet HappyApple in a middle ground, so he would not feel the previous vote was invalidated by any means. However, to claim I resorted to any underhanded or misleading tactics is edging uncivility. Please mind what you say in the future. We both wish to reach a fair end to this dispute. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (User:Pedant's)reply:

Your acceptance of me as HappyApple's advocate is irrelevant to this issue. I do not resort to mudslinging. I mereley stated, as above, that you are mischaracterising the consensus as being 'to delete', which you are, there is no consensus to delete this entirely appropriate material, and your characterisation of a 2-3 vote against deleting it as being a consensus to delete it is in fact a mischaracterisation.

There is nothing unorthodox about HappyApple's position to include the verifiable factual and relevant material which you seem insistent upon removing. There is no middle ground. (it can be deleted or not deleted) Consensus is clear on including cultural referents such as these.

Voting is specifically not a part of the consensus process. Consensus is reached by discussion of the matters, not by votes, or second votes, or trying to combine a first and second vote. Your position of wanting to reach consensus by multiple votes and combined votes about whether verifiable factual and relevant material should be excluded from this one article and not from any other is unorthodox and further, is not according to policy, guidelines, custom, or tradition.

As an advocate I am bound to be civil, and not to misstate facts or to draw unwarranted inferences. It was not being uncivil to state " the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previous vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines. A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, all of which are clear. I never in any sense made the claim that you "resorted to any underhanded or misleading tactics".

I am assuming good faith on the part of all parties to this dispute, as policy dictates that I do.

However, it is factual that the previous vote was inconclusive, and that the majority did not support your position. By characterising the discussion as a consensus to delete, you were in fact mischaracterizing the the consensus. (I made no accusation that this was intentional on your part.)

Consensus on this talk page is unclear -- however on a global, wikipedia-wide scale the consensus is clear, that wikipedia articles include, and include only, verifiable factual and relevant material. This is a matter of such firm consensus that there is in fact official policy regarding the inclusion of verifiable factual and relevant material. If you disagree with that policy, the talk page of the relevant policy is the place to express such disagreement.

If you have something to say about Hwacha, this is the place to do it. Let's keep this discussion here on this page, and let's resolve this through discussion.

I have seen no discussion on your part as to why this material should be excluded from this article. Let's discuss that, instead of treating this as a dispute, let's treat this as a collaboration. If this material harms the article in any way, let's talk about that. Certainly we should all agree that the goal here is to write a good article using verifiable factual and relevant material, right? User:Pedant 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit One:

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

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant:

  1. Point one, you state that you and "other editors" disagree. I understand that you disagree. However you are disagreeing with something I did not say. I did not say "the sections are common and thus valid". I know of only two editors who have taken the position that this material be excluded, and none has given a reason why it should be excluded. The fact that you proposed that the deletion of these sections be made policy has no real bearing on the fact that it is not policy at present and that no consensus has been reached to make it policy. The fact that anything in any article is there over a period of time tends to indicates a consensus, because anyone can remove anything at any time. When such removal is not consented to, then we have a discussion, such as this.

arguments against inclusion

The following are all the arguments I can find in the discussion as to why the section should be deleted:

PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE, GAME MANIACS GO AWAY

You see how awkward it is to have a section dedicated to games in the end? This isn't even infos, buddy. Especially in such a short article. I tried to moderate it, but it just looks so bad.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in museums? This is what I mean by fancy. Unnecessary but long, as to look professional and official.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in national parks? People just want to mention games. They get excited, don't they. Why don't they play games all their life and not edit in Wikipedia, then.

I say delete it.

Not sure if I can trust games to depict hwachas and stuff.

...none of which seems to be a well reasoned argument as to why the section should be deleted.

continued

  1. (above)
  2. Policy precludes the imprecise use of the term 'fancruft' as being insulting and without definition. Please cite the essays to which you refer? It is not irrelevant to include a mention of games which have hwacha in them, the article is titled hwacha, and the references are relevant to hwacha, I don't see how that is difficult to understand.
  3. Poorly written sections can be rewritten, that's how wikipedia works. Not every editor is a native speaker of English, and nobody is expected to write as brilliantly as you, because you can edit the writing yourself to make it brilliantly written. You should not just delete poorly written text.
  4. The text to which you refer is not a software directory. It is a paragraph about modern cultural referents to the subject of the article. See this for a definition of a directory, which I already quoted above, I will henceforth consider that you in fact have read it and are either misunderstanding or misstating official wikipedia policy if you refer to the removed text as a directory. Previously an editor has said "Firstly, about the game section. I agree that Hwacha's should be noted for their use in games. However the section should be kept at a basic level and not detailed." and nobody disagreed with the editor, so really, an undetailed game section follows consensus. This comment was after the first vote which was inconclusive: 3 to 2 to keep the games section.
  5. Games that have Hwacha in them are relevant to the article Hwacha because they have hwacha in them. I don't speak Korean or Chinese, is hwacha the correct plural? The article called Hwacha mentions games that have hwacha for the same reason that Knight mentions Chess, and the individual game articles in question link to Hwacha for the same reason that Chess links to Knight. Also, since the text was in the article and then removed, I think the onus is on the person removing it to say why it should be removed. HappyApple has been very patient to try to express the point, but has not gotten any clear response as to why it should be deleted.

OrbitOne also deleted: "The Japanese Samurai ground troops, typically advanced in dense groups, presenting ideal targets for the hwacha. [1]"

Would anyone care to explain the removal of this text as well?

If you can't express why these relevant factual and verifiable portions of text should be removed, maybe it is time to try more formal dispute resolution procedures, as I will readily certify that informal procedures have been tried by HappyApple with no success. Should we do that? Or have more discussion? It seems that you are bent on modifying present policy and if so, we should have a more global discussion, perhaps? User:Pedant 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete it?

Its very existence.

Look at Encarta, Britannica, World Book, and other encyclopedias. Popular culture? Are you serious. Games? Movies?

These are unncessary "facts" (if they can be considered so). If what you say holds -that anything that is info should be on Wikipedia, then all articles would be random assortment of stupid facts.

If there was a statement, "Somebody was human." on an article, shouldn't we delete it? Sure, that person was human. It's the truth. So we are going to keep it.

That attitude is ridiculous. The fact that it exists is the reason to delete it. Or else Wikipedia will turn into a blog community. Random facts here and there. It won't be an encyclopedia.

(Wikimachine 02:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The popular culture section is not bad. I already mentioned above that the Samurai article is filled with info on the popular cuture section. I don't think we should get to that level but a brief description of its role in games and movies is not bad. Good friend100 02:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimachine, am I correct in assuming you don't think that completeness is vital to a good encyclopedia? What in particular are you saying about Encarta, Britannica, World Book, and other encyclopedias? What do you mean by unnecessary facts? Your arguments are 'straw man' arguments, you set something up (a misrepresentation of the other's argument) and then argue against that, the thing that wasn't said. You were apparently the first to delete this information, but have never said why. Instead you said things like 'game maniacs go away'. So would you accept as a counterargument: 'Rampant deletionists go away!' ? If you well tell me in what way the inclusion of the cultural referents damages the wikipedia, I would be more likely to be swayed by your argument. Maybe you would like to remove a mention of chess from all articles besides Chess? Maybe remove the article Chess as well... and then delete the articles on movies? And where do you stop? Who decides what is includable in your perfect encyclopedia? You alone? Or only people who don't disagree with you? Maybe you want to write an encyclopedia all by yourself? To be collaborative, a project needs to have open-minded people working on it, I think. User:Pedant 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey we don't need to get all stoney on other people. Wikimachine however is still trying to help. He simply has a different opinion than you.

I still disagree with deleting the popular culture information. I don't understand how it hurts the article. It shows how popular the hwacha is today.

Please tell me the reasons why it should be deleted. Good friend100 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey hey hey we don't need to get all stoney on other people." -- that's good advice... thanks. I hadn't meant to rant and my rant seems to be more of a tirade. I'm sorry.
I just want to emphasise that there are more people editing the encyclopedia than just the handful here, and we really should try to be consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. Also, I really don't think wikipedia is meant to be the same as other encyclopedias. It's supposed to become better, or what is the point of having it? Sorry for that burst of steam. User:Pedant 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I myself have problems with your behaviour Pedant. I have made a request for an Advocates assistance so I do not need to deal your your 'burst of steam' in this dispute. Until then, disengaging from this dispute until I have an Advocate to assist me and you yourself are ready is most diserable. Good day. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrbitOne

To address point 5.

Not everything that features a Hwacha is automaticly relevant to the historical weapon. The games never have had an effect on peoples factual knowledge of the weapon past that it existed. A good test of relevance is to ask, would the article change significantly, or at all past the games mention, if the games never featured this weapons? If it would not change, then the game is not relevant. If it would change, then it would be relevant. Also, the section is missing context as to how it is relevant to the historical weapon. If you wish to explain in what context the games are relevant, then please do.

But the point of Knight being linked to in Chess is a questionable argument. The knight is a featured and important part of that game. Applying the test mentioned, the article would be significantly changed if the knight was never part of the game. Likewise, the games that feature a Hwacha should link to the article Hwacha if the use of the weapon in the game is significant to game play, but this still does not make the games relevant to the Hwacha.

To address point 2.

To address point 3.

If you wish to suggest a rewrite, then I must insist that it also has some context as to why it is notable. Would you care to explain how it is notable?

To address point 4.

As I said, the section can be rewritten into a software directory without any loss of context or content. If it can be rewritten into a good directory without any loss of either context or content, then it is a directory, no matter how poorly written. Also, the claim that Wikipedia's examples of a directory are the only kinds of directories is short sighted. Wikipedia cannot list every kind of directory and instead gives a few examples so there is an understanding as to what a directory is. It is my understanding this is a directory.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus on pop culture sections was reached, although disputed by some, on the villagepump. I never stated the editors said the games section here was irrelevant or any concensus was reached on the villagepump in relation to this very article. Please read the village pump so you can see the discussion. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 06:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that discussion, most of the text was contributed by you, and nowhere is there a mention that a consensus has been reached, and in fact there is no consensus. There was no vote. There were people who made comments on 'both sides' of the discussion. Roughly half of the entries in the discussion were you, and you can't reach a consensus by yourself. Much of wht you wrote dealt with 'software developers using wikipedia to plug there software' -- again, a blatant characterisation of one thing as another very different thing. Or do you allege that HappyApple is in fact a 'developer plugging games'? Please, can we have a rational logical discussion without such... (well excuse me but the only way I can describe it is) 'trickery'? Consensus cannot be reached by manipulation, we are, or should be, trying to resolve this in such a way that it will stay resolved: other editors will come along, and if we do not reach a good understanding of consensus, they will just edit the content back in, or remove it or whatever, however if we gain an understanding of what the whole group of editors think is appropriate, and not just the 10 or so in this discussion, it will be of more lasting value. I'm not arguing against you, I am arguing with you. Please join me and lets argue together. In that way we can neither win nor lose. User:Pedant 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection!

This is a misleading statement.

User OrbitOne mischaracterizes the removed material as:

1. A link exchange, see the applicable policy here which states in part: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article".

I am not the one who characterized it as a link exchange. HappyApple did that himself.

His own words. While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional

With this statement, he said a reason there should be a link to a game on the article here is because there is a link on the game's article links to this article. That is a link exchange. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are mischaracterising: bidirectional hyperlinked crossreferences are not the same as a link exchange. Link exchange is the practice (usually done by commercial websites) of hosting links to other websites which in turn host links to the first website, for the purpose of increasing pagehit counts and thus improving search engine rankings. See link exchange. If these were external links you might make the case that this was done to improve rankings however they are internal links to other wikipedia articles. However, it strikes me as absurd to allege that this is done to increase pageranking, as wikipedia articles are typically within the top 4 search engine results for a given search string (for which wikipedia has relevant content).
One thing (as it appears to me) that you do that makes discussion difficult is to take one thing and represent it as another, as you continue to do with the term 'directory' which is plainly not what the text in question is.
If you would argue the single point "Why this text has a negative impact on the quality of the article such that the damage done to the article outweighs the value of the crossreference" it would be easier for us to reach a conclusion. Spinning this out into other realms of non-relevant discussion and characterising things as things which they are not does damage to the wikipedia by not allowing us to have any ability to reach consensus. To discuss this effectively we need to be discussing the same thing in the same terms. Again I ask: "what makes this text so objectionable as to outweigh its value?" User:Pedant 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HappyApple:

I think this dispute it is likely to will move forward to an advanced level of dispute resolution process. I tried in all ways and terms to solve this apparent dispute in an informal way contacting an advocate who can represent me in presenting my arguments but it seems OrbitOne's insistence would force this dispute move to a formal level, and i think it is quite baseless because he had mischaracterizatied Wikipedia policies.

  1. In my point of view, and the years i have edited so far on Wikipedia, i have never seen such flames or disputes regarding popular culture or games, in fact they seem to be widely tolerated by wikipedia community.
  2. OrbitOne has used this words : "Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game."
  • First of all we are not playing a game, we are discussing if Popular culture and the games included on the section it should be keep or delete. In my opinion there are many articles, such as Trebuchet, Piltdown man, Turtle ship, and even Dromon (which was recently deleted by OrbitOne) and so on which featured a popular culture trivia created by editors which maybe in some cases were not experienced ones, but they indeed felt the inclusion of such information was valuable to the article because showed readers how this or that weapon or article was related to another one.

Although readers would focus their attention on how the weapon was designed and how it was used, this doesn't mean that games or popular culture wouldn't gather their attention too.

In fact if we see documentaries on television from National Geographic and even the A&E's famous Biography, we can see that after all the professionalism there is a popular culture reference near the end of the program. Back to Wikilawyering, i think OrbitOne is not figuring Wikilawyering it is not a good thing, and i quote: "Utilization of the word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous." and for this i believe OrbitOne isn't taking this dispute seriously. I am in favor to get to an accord instead going into a tedious process of dispute resolution. And i want to quote Pedant's words. We are working together, Wikipedia it is about team work, not a feudal system. I appeal to editors being tolerant, finally i want to quote Matt words which i feel are very important on this issue, "Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Do not let your personal prejudices / intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless." HappyApple 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from HappyApple's advocate second step:disengage

The next stage of dispute resolution is to disengage for a while, see WP:DR I am advising HappyApple to take one week off from this dispute, and I encourage anyone involved to do so as well. Let's get together in a week and see if we can achieve a resolution. User:Pedant 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will walk away from this dispute for one week. HappyApple 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got here late, I guess, too late I guess to interject with my opinion before everyone already disengaged, though I did have the page on my watchlist I don't always check over the weekend. In the future, it might be nice to let a vote go more than two days, especially when they are both weekend days, before declaring an impass and "disengaging." Komdori 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..it seems that everybody has left after that "one week". Guys, its just over a small section of the article. And why does it matter to have a teeny part to describe the hwacha's use in popular culture? This argument is ridiculous and has no point. Just keep the section simple. It doesn't have to complex and detailed. Good friend100 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a guideline about popular culture. You may want to read it. --Kusunose 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the section is fine, its not repetitive or descriptive. Good friend100 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fine. See WikiProject Military history's guidelines? (Wikimachine 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. The section should be removed. Doubly so because it isn't descripting in explaining its cultural impact. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Meditation Cabal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture. (Wikimachine 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The result was the deletion of the popular culture section, per WikiProject Military History's guidelines on popular culture. (Wikimachine 16:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Lost faith in my advocat

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

If I am going to be completely ignored...

...Then I will just take action and edit the article myself. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair enough to move the section in question to the talk page while it is being debated. Please, do not undermine me here. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Popular culture'

A modern portrayal of hwachas has seen mostly in Turn-based strategy games where they are depicted as artillery weapons. They have appeared in Civilization series, Play the World, and Conquests. Hwachas were a featured unique unit for the Korean civilization. In Rise of Nations, the weapon responsible for their inspiration, Chinese fire arrows, appears. They also appear in Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.

You're not being ignored. I waited for the cabal case & since it's closed, I thought that the general consensus was that it would be deleted. I'll delete it. (Wikimachine 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I shall remind both this case isn't closed yet, and the article is still ongoing debate, please don't accelerate things.--HappyApple 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_Hwacha_popular_culture, it is closed. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 07:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mediator's Comment - Hi guys. Sorry about the delay. The case is not closed. I opened it a while ago and then went on vacation. As a result, the case was closed inadvertently by me since it hadn't been edited in a while. I've reopened the case page, and begun a mediation subpage (which can be found here) to structure the debate. →Bobby← 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolis effect

"but the coriolis effect and weather conditions during a battle generally shortened their striking distance to about 100 meters. [13]"

I really doubt that the coriolis effect would matter on a projectile weapon with a max range of 100 meters. And the link the citation is broken. Can anybody confirm? Ledtim 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed {{ref}}/{{note}} matching problem. Now, the citation link refers to Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons in the note. --Kusunose 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is broken again. --Apoc2400 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwacha in M2TW?

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

Hwacha tested at 500 yards

Mythbusters tested a 200 shot Hwacha at 500 yards, it worked and the arrows were grouped tightly, they also exploded with lethal force. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'spoilers' on the MythBusters reference were removed before - but were re-added. In my opinion they should not be there. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Effect

The arrows wouldn't experience a Magnus effect since their axis of rotation is the same as their direction. Right? I'm looking for comfirmation before I delete the statement since I may have misunderstood something about the projectile's motion.

Korean origin theory with painful stomach

Now it doesn't go to paste this hearty laugh article. The bulletin board of China waits for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.38.42.157 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Nationalism Knows No Bounds

This device is not "Korean" in origin. The Korean version is simply an offshoot of the various Chinese designs that worked according to the same principle...

http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/images/hc-1.jpg http://img4.itiexue.net/1356/13567048.jpg http://img8.itiexue.net/1356/13567016.jpg http://www.act.com.sg/dominion/images/image006.jpg

The fact that Koreans adopted this design and made their own alterations does not make it a "Korean invention". Unfortunately some nationalist keeps removing my edits where I highlight that the basic design first appeared in China, not Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You end to condemning someone who does not agree with you as nationalist. Basically, I cannot consent with your argument because it makes little sense. Some pictures you provided were wheelbarrows with one wheel (How can a device be balanced with a tiny wheelbarrow against vibrations caused from shooting multiple rockets?) which have no trajectory or transporting carts with no trajectory as well. It is hardly to imagine that the pictures are really depicting any kind of multiple rocket launchers. At least, I can assume in your favour that a picture could be an old device equipped with gunpowder cartridges. I don’t think that Chinese at that time, who invented rocket, were unscientific to ignore trajectory. Trajectory were not applied to the Chinese devices at that time, since they weren't rocket launchers at all, but devices of multiple shots using gunpowder deployed in the close range combat against enemies. That is why the Chinese wheelbarrows or carts were equipped with blades and spikes. Koryosaram (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Devices for shooting something(blades and spikes on devices are shown on the pictures) using gunpowder is not enough to cover the correct definition for a rocket launcher. And please note that removing single or multi sourced passages without any clear reason can be regarded as vandalism. Koryosaram (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Koryosama. You obviously haven't looked at the images. One of the designs is intended for close range combat with a low trajectory, the other two for longer range combat, with a higher trajectory, though not as high as in some Korean models I've seen. One of the pictures I provided, found in the Wu Bei Zhi, portrays a design strikingly similar to the Korean version of the Hwacha, simply with extended firing chambers. Yang Hong, an authority on Chinese gunpowder weapons, writes in his "Weapons in Ancient China" that the device was often used effectively at distances in the range of 200 metres, hardly simply "close range", and hardly possible if the device had "no trajectory". What actually happened is that the device was invented first in China at the beginning of the Ming and adopted by Korea, with Korean specialists making their own innovations during the reign of King Munjong of Joseon. Compare for yourself:

http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/images/hc-3.jpg < Korean http://img8.itiexue.net/1356/13567016.jpg < Chinese

Nationalism is at work in this article, as it is with every Korea-related article on wikipedia. There's a massive movement to whitewash any Chinese influence on anything Korean on wiki right now, from the "scytho-Siberian" Hanbok to the "Siberian Shamanistic" Dano festival to the Hwacha.

You can say that one specific Hwacha variant was a Korean INNOVATION, but to pretend that it's a completely indigenous Korean invention with absolutely no mention of the earlier Chinese models is simply to falsify history.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hwacha&oldid=473858721"