Talk:Kyŏngguk taejŏn

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 17 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Gyeongguk daejeon to Kyŏngguk taejŏn. The result of the discussion was moved.

Misleading date ranges

The article currently reads:

...every law, acts, customs, ordinances to have been released since the late period of the Goryeo Dynasty (918 - 1392) to the early Joseon Dynasty (1392 – 1897).

The date ranges are the full time spans of the dynasties, not just the "late period" of Goryeo or the "early period" of Joseon. I'm assuming that there are no exact date specifications to give, so I'm deleting the dates entirely. We can assume that the reader is familiar with the chronologies of the Korean eras, and if not, they can click through to the relevant articles. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While discarding the arguments that were not pertaining to this discussion, I see no oppose to the proposed title. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeongguk daejeon → Kyŏngguk taejŏn – Defaulting to McCune–Reischauer per WP:KO-WORKS. seefooddiet (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed revision Gyeongguk daejeon → Kyongguk taejon, but without the diacritics. Currently, both Kyŏngguk taejŏn and Kyongguk taejon redirect to the existing header Gyeongguk daejeon. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others reading, see [1][2][3][4][5]. This user has an agenda against diacritics, but not once has any other user ever agreed with them. Their recommendation goes against MOS:KO and WP:NCKO, which ask us to use diacritics. MOS:DIACRITICS. They've been asked to stop pushing this POV, but continue to do so. I still maintain this behavior is poor, unproductive, and even potentially discriminatory behavior towards Irish people, but Roman Spinner is shameless about it. No interest in avoiding discrimination or respecting our community. seefooddiet (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at this response to my vote, especially since the vote is basically "Support", although with a reservation and, in the nominator's concurrent submission (Shin Suk-ju → Sin Sukchu) at Talk:Shin Suk-ju#Requested move 17 October 2024, I likewise voted "Support" and even made a point of mentioning nominator's proven expertise in the subject at hand.

I am likewise surprised at the accusation of having an agenda in light of the fact that I rarely, if ever, edit articles related to Korea, transliteration, accents and diacritics or even make such submissions to WP:RM. The only times I ever comment on these topics is when other editors submit them to RM.

Even more surprising is the mention of "potentially discriminatory behavior towards Irish people" since I never mentioned any Irish topic in anything I wrote and, furthermore, since Ireland uses the Latin alphabet and my objections were solely focused upon the use of diacritics in transliterations from non-Latin alphabets into English, it would have been counterintuitive to even mention Irish topics.

Finally, WP:Assume good faith should avoid such content as, "Roman Spinner is shameless about it. No interest in avoiding discrimination or respecting our community". My objections to use of diacritics in transliterations are made in good faith and, if my partial "Oppose" vote were to cause this RM to end in "No consensus" / "Not moved", I would like the closer to view the "Oppose" portion of my vote as revised to "Neutral". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only voted support in that other discussion because my proposal didn't have a diacritic. You would have tried this same tactic if it did have one. Your attempt to pander to my supposed expertise is meaningless, considering you willfully ignored it here at your own convenience.

Your agenda shows up when editors submit posts to RM. That's an agenda. Stop trying to use that argument; it doesn't work. You have a consistent pattern in pushing this argument through and you previously admitted to trying to do this to get the overall MOS to change (instead of just having a direct conversation with people), that is an agenda.

Irish topics were relevant in that link I gave, and I still think they're relevant. I'm still unsatisfied with your explanations that you gave on your talk page; you didn't account for if WP:COMMONNAME has the diacritics; you just proposed ignoring the common name and MOS:DIACRITICS unilaterally in order to avoid diacritics.

I assumed good faith the first time you tried this. I invited you to participate in the MOS discussion. You ignored my suggestion, and continued acting this way. My good faith naturally ran thin afterwards; I've already explained why on your talk page. You keep eating up our time on these micro challenges instead of making larger ones.

Only now have you thought about it enough to realize your participation can actually block our progress in getting these otherwise easy moves through, and that you're wasting our time by doing this over and over. Why did it even take like 7 discussions for you to propose this? If you always frame your vote as neutral I'll be more satisfied but still annoyed. I'm already annoyed that you ate up this much of my time over literally no change to the encyclopedia. seefooddiet (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to play class captain but focus on content not the editor. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.