Talk:Seoul–Pyongyang hotline

Apparent inconsistency in dates?

The article says "North Korea disconnected the hotline between 11 March and 3 July 2013" and then goes on to say "North Korea reopened the hotline on 7 June 2013." OK, so was the line reopened on 7 June or 3 July 2013? The Reuters article cited implies there are two separate hotlines, saying "North Korea had stopped responding to calls on the Red Cross hotline in March. Another hotline, used by military officials, remains down." --Muzilon (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

As there's not one single hotline between Seoul and Pyongyang (like other hotlines between capitals/heads of government), but merely a range of phone lines, I would suggest to rename this article to Panmunjom hotlines, which reflects the fact that most of the hotlines run through that border town. It is also the name of the Chinese Wikipedia article about this issue. Greetings, P2Peter (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: it is clearly a colloquialism rather than a technically accurate description, so I don't see a problem where you do. The other articles, Moscow–Washington hotline, Islamabad–New Delhi hotline, Beijing–Washington hotline follow the same pattern (WP:CONSISTENCY). I think in our present article the lead is awfully written and draws undue attention to it by making explicit the fact that it's not a single line; the other articles mostly call it a "system of communication". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those other hotlines consist of telephone or communications equipment located in or near the offices of the respective heads of state/government, which make their name appropriate. For the Koreas the situation is different, the main hotline which is most often reported about is the one in Panmunjom. Consistency is good, but here the current title is actually misleading. P2Peter (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]