Copyright issue edit

It looks like you're copying example sentences from online quizzes. Is that correct? If so, it is copyright violation, and they will have to be removed as soon as possible. @Chuck EntzΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The examples were retrieved from Korean dictionary. The translations(English to Korean) are submitted by random users(I participated in some of the translations as well), so I do not believe it's a copyright issue. P.S. I got blocked by Surjection for 1 day. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs).

Even if it is user-submitted content, it might not still be necessarily acceptable to simply copy them into the dictionary as-is and it rather depends on the license such content would have. The website might point it out somewhere. Either way, it's not usually a good idea to just copy content straight from elsewhere. The blocking itself is a precautionary action, and if it turns out there was no copyright violation involved, you will be unblocked. — surjection?⟩ 08:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] As you can see here in this link, translations are made by the random users including myself. I don't think there's a copy right issue involved, since anyone can participate and edit. Also, some of the sentences(as well as translations) were created by myself. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs).

If you created both the sentence and the translation, that should be fine to add here, but as I stated above, even user-created content on a site may still fall under copyvio and generally copying content directly is not a good idea. — surjection?⟩ 08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But as you can see in this link,먹다, many sentences were retrieved from dictionary without citation. For example, 그 여자는 그 음식을 좀 먹었다. 그런데 모두 먹기에는 그렇게 배고프지 않았다. 그래서 나중에 다 먹으려고 냉장고에 그것을 넣어두었다. This one can be found in here: No citation. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs).

It seems more likely that that page has sourced its sentences from the Korean Wiktionary from which the sentences it mentions can also be found. — surjection?⟩ 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So are you saying that I can not retrieve information from external sites, even if I disclose the source? I can create both sentence and translations, but it just takes more time and inefficient. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs).

I certainly wouldn't copy large numbers of example sentences or definition lines or such over from sites where the licensing isn't clear. Either way, it needs to be conclusively decided whether this was a copyvio or not, and I don't feel qualified enough to decide that alone here. Whether information can be copied in general depends on what is being copied - the rules for etymology sections for instance are less strict but still are generally against straight copy-paste. — surjection?⟩ 09:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I will call tomorrow and ask them if it's ok to bring the examples to wikitionary. Thanks.

I called today but they said it's a complicated issue, so I couldn't get a definite answer. Although I have identified its sources, it might breach copyright law, so I'm going to remove all of the examples except for the ones that I made. Just to be clear, I looked into many Korean words and found out that some of the information were misleading or even fake. These distorted information could be used for one-sided persepctive by small people. As always, we need to read the full report, not just a brief summary.

P.S. Surjection, I cannot remove the examples that I put in since you blocked me. Please unblock me so that I can remove the examples. It might breach copyright law.

External links and usage examples edit

Kindly refrain from adding external web links such as this to dictionary entries. Before you make any further edits, please take your time to read the following articles: (1) Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not#Wiktionary is not Wikipedia (2) Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians#What can be included (3) Wiktionary:Normalization of entries (4) Wiktionary:Entry layout (5) Wiktionary:References (6) Wiktionary:Links (7) Wiktionary:Quotations (8) Wiktionary:Example sentences#Official policy.

It is not necessary to add references to external sites for every lemma. Editors are encouraged to add quotations taken from published sources such as books, newspapers, journals to illustrate the usage of the lemma. If no quotations can be found due to copyright issues or some other reason, editors are encouraged to add example sentences.


References are used to give credit to sources of information used here as well as to provide authority to such information. Importantly, references are not considered primary sources so do not count as 'uses' for the purposes of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation. References are not mandatory for any entry, because Wiktionary includes terms based on their real-world usage, not inclusion in other dictionaries, encyclopedias and glossaries (and so on).


Generally, every definition should be accompanied by a quotation illustrating the definition. If no quotation can be found, it is strongly encouraged to create an example sentence.


An "example sentence" is a sentence written to demonstrate usage of a particular word in context. An example sentence is invented by its writer to show how to use a particular word properly in writing.

Examples sentences are distinct from quotations or citations, which are taken from a published source, rather than invented by a Wiktionary editor.

Note that for quotations, templates such as {{quote-journal}} or one of these templates are used. For quotations, editors are encouraged to use Wikisource to search for relevant quotations. Once again, there is no need to add links to external websites for every edit that you make. If you feel that there is a need to add lemma-specific references, kindly use one of these templates instead.

Due to the excessively large number of existing usage examples in Korean (1,369 entries) compared to quotations (9 entries), you are advised to look for actual quotations from published or well-attested sources before adding any usage examples.

Additional note: for entries such as (bon), there is no need to split each sense from 本#Korean into nine separate etymologies. Also, edits such as this does not follow the entry layout of Wiktionary and is likely to be reverted soon. Last but not least, feel free to read this up. KevinUp (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply edit

When I edited 皇#Korean, you told me to source only published book contents in the document editing message, so that's why I added external web links such as this. Also, you reverted 皇 from (갈, 왕) to (엄숙할, 왕) which is not true. I politely asked you to check the 훈음 of 皇 in South Korea. But thanks for reminding me of the basic guildelines and templates,etc. It might help me when I'm editing. Also, you said this does not follow the entry layout of Wiktionary. Could you please specify in detail what mistakes I made in formatting? I'll try not to repeat the same mistake next time. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs) at 14:03, 9 April 2019‎.

By the way, the links you provided to me was very helpful. It was interesting. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs) at 14:18, 9 April 2019‎.

The reason why I deleted 'example' template in this edit was because words somehow broke and were not aligned properly. Could you please help me with the formatting? Thanks in advance. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs) at 15:52, 9 April 2019‎.

  • With regards to 皇#Korean, you are advised to consult printed dictionaries such as Han-Han Dae Sajeon (한한대사전) that come with usage examples to show how the hanja is used in a Korean context, e.g. in Korean Confucian texts or in historical works written by Korean scholars using only hanja.
Note that many modern dictionaries (particularly online websites) also include the modern Chinese definition of the character used Mandarin, so editors need to be careful not to include these definitions. If possible, please search for the character in the Korean Wikisource and identify its meaning.
Definitions in Wiktionary are added based on attested usage of the word, and not based on definitions provided by other dictionaries, which is why edits such as this are not relevant. Instead, please add quotations of the word using {{quote-journal}}. The purpose of Wiktionary is to record words and its usage plus meaning, so external links such as this are not needed.
  • Also, you made two mistakes here. Since the Hangul used in both North and South Korea is the same, there is no need to repeat the same information. If the spelling or meaning of the word is different, then labels such as {{lb|ko|North Korea}}, {{lb|ko|South Korea}} are used to categorize the entry into Category:North Korean and Category:South Korean respectively.
The other mistake is incorrect use of =====See also=====. As stated here, the "See also" section is used to link to entries and/or other pages on Wiktionary, including appendices and categories. Do not use this section to link to external sites such as Wikipedia or other encyclopedias and dictionaries
  1. (hwang)
  2. (wang)
Each phonetic reading has the following 훈독 (訓讀, hundok, “semantic reading”):
  1. (hwang) → 임금 (imgeum, “monarch; ruler”)
  2. (wang) → two possible semantic readings:
(a) (gal) (Uncertain, could be either 가다 (gada) or 갈다 (galda))
(b) 엄숙할 (eomsukhal) (from 엄숙하다 (eomsukhada, “to be solemn”))
As mentioned above, definitions are added based on usages, not based on what is listed or provided by other Korean dictionaries. I could not find usage examples of (, wang) with the meaning 가다 (gada) or 갈다 (galda) in historical Korean texts but was able to find the meaning 엄숙하다 (eomsukhada, “to be solemn”) used in 皇皇 as follows:
  • As for this edit, there are many issues with it. You are advised not to repeat the following mistakes:
(1) Replacement of standard ==Korean== language header with nonstandard ==The list of family names whose original [[Hangul]] spelling has been altered by 두음 법칙(頭音法則) in 1933.==
For Wiktionary, we have strict standards regarding headers. Only the following Wiktionary:Entry layout#List of headings are allowed. Unlike Wikipedia, editors are not allowed to invent their own headers. Purposely altering headers is akin to vandalism.
(2) Removal of {{examples|example=}}. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary makes heavy use of templates. Editors are advised to read the documentation of each template before making any changes - see Template:examples or Template:examples/documentation for more information.
(3) Over-emphasis on family names. 두음 법칙 (頭音法則, dueum beopchik) does not affect only family names. It affects all Sino-Korean compounds that begin with the consonant (r-) and some that begin with (n-). As a dictionary, editors are expected to maintain a neutral point of view. It has come to my attention that you have been blocked for up to three times already (twice as an IP address).
As a dictionary, Wiktionary records words, its existence and usage examples of the word. The six examples added previously are examples of the concept, not examples of the word itself, so there is no need to add so many examples of the concept. It might be more appropriate to add examples of the concept on Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary.
(4) Addition of the following encyclopedic statement: It is estimated that more than 11 million people's surnames have been altered by 두음 법칙(頭音法則), which accounted for 23% of South Korea's population in 2007.
This statement is related to the concept of the term, and is not related to how the term 두음 법칙 (頭音法則, dueum beopchik) is used in the Korean language. Once again, the statement above belongs to Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. For Wiktionary, we are more concerned over quotations and usage examples of a certain word in a particular language rather than encyclopedic statements.
(5) This one is minor: Removal of a blank line - See here. KevinUp (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay. I'll be more careful next time. I'm sorry if what I've done has caused any inconvenience to Wiktionary. I'm not good enough, but I'll work hard to learn from now on. Also, I'll be busy until June so I won't be able to edit it often. I'll try to follow the guidelines you gave me next time when I edit the document. Thanks for your help. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs) at 21:34, 9 April 2019‎.
  • Also, "definitions are added based on usages, not based on what is listed or provided by other Korean dictionaries." I think this statement is a little bit vague because I think what is already listed in formal Korean dictionary is read by many people and hence more popular term. Anyway I'll be more careful next time. Thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by B2V22BHARAT (talkcontribs) at 21:51, 9 April 2019‎.
Formal dictionaries or dictionaries published by national authorities tend to be prescriptivist, i.e. it lays down the rules regarding language usage that the people should use. Definitions are usually added based on what is commonly used as well as what people should use. Words that are used incorrectly, sensitive words, slang or dialectal words, words such as foreign loanwords that are considered nonstandard, as well as obsolete terms are usually omitted from such dictionaries. This is known as linguistic prescription.
However, Wiktionary tends to be descriptivist, i.e. words are defined and recorded based on usage rather than theory. If a word can be verified through widespread use and is found on permanently recorded media, then it can be added to Wiktionary. By extension, definitions that are not found in formal dictionaries can also be added to Wiktionary, as long as it fulfills the criteria for inclusion. This is known as linguistic description.
Ideally, every line of definition on Wiktionary needs to be supported with relevant quotations (not just usage examples). Many English entries, especially those in Wiktionary:Word of the day have achieved this. There are currently 68,700 quotations and 6,600 usage examples for English entries, out of a total of 549,969 English entries (The ratio is approximately 10 quotations, 1 usage example for every 80 English entries).
However, for Korean entries, there are currently 9 quotations and 1,369 usage examples, out of a total of 26,100 entries (The ratio is approximately 0.026 quotation, 4 usage examples, for every 76 Korean entries). So for Korean entries, usage examples need to be reduced by 25% and quotations need to be increased by 385%. More quotations are needed for Korean. Besides Wikisource, you can also add quotations from old books or newspapers that are out of copyright. KevinUp (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, here are other things for you to take note of:
(1) Be sure to read Wiktionary:Entry layout. This is the most important document regarding formatting.
(2) If you see an entry with a definition that you are not sure of, please use the talk page or post your question at Wiktionary:Tea room. Do not remove the definition unless you are sure that is it vandalism.
It seems that you had previously removed two definitions from 朴#Chinese. I have added quotations to support these definitions. Even though a definition cannot be found in a particular dictionary, that does not mean that the definition is incorrect. It may be an archaic or obsolete term. If possible, consult library dictionaries, especially the thicker ones that have more words and definitions. I find printed dictionaries to be much more reliable compared to online dictionaries.
For extreme cases, you may also use Wiktionary:Requests for verification to confirm or dispute the existence of a certain entry on Wiktionary.
(3) Please be more careful with hanja compounds. In this edit, derived terms of (1) (, noe, “to get angry”), (2) (, roe, “prison”), (3) (, roe, “thunder”) were mistakenly added to the derived terms of (, noe, “brain”). If possible, only add terms that you know and try not to copy and paste from other websites.
(4) Last of all, please sign your posts on talk pages or discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~) so that your user name and time of post appears at the end of each reply. Hopefully you can learn from your mistakes and become a better editor next time. KevinUp (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I didn't know 朴 meant rat meat and it was a surname used by people in the 夷 country. I think I underestimated the wiktionary. There was no meaning of rat meat in South Korean dictionary, so I didn't know it. In South Korea, 朴 is mostly used as a family name, gourd, and only known as a some kind of tree name(Silver Magnolia?) and bark of a tree. In other countries, they could have given a different meaning to 朴. Now I know how the wiktionary works. As you know, Korea borrowed a lot of Chinese characters, so even the same Chinese character can have a different meaning in Korea. Also, North and South Korea have very different languages. In the case of North Korea, the meaning of some words may be distorted for political purposes, as you can see from [바르다] example. Before Korea was divided, the historical meaning of the word 바르다 was 'many', as seen in the example of "On the sunny side,(양지바르다)". But in North Korea, the meaning of the word '바르다' seems to be indicating something lack of it. Maybe it's what North Korea has created for the sake of its regime. But Kim Jung il and Kim Jung Un are all using 바를,정(正) in their name, so think it's a complicated problem. Also, as you pointed out, I made a mistake in this edit. I got confused when I added the words. Next time, I'll edit it with more caution. I'm busy now because I have something to study, but if I have time, I'll add Korean words. I hope many other South Koreans will participate besides me. Thanks for the information.

BTW, what do you mean signing on talk pages with four tildes? Could you please explain? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Oh I got it. Thanks.Reply[reply]

(, jeong) in the two leaders' names is related to the original 훈독 (訓讀, hundok, “semantic reading”) of in Middle Korean: 바ᄅᆞ다 (palota, to be straight; upright, to be right; correct). Also, be sure to use {{lb|ko|North Korea}} for word meanings that are specific to North Korea. This would categorize the words into Category:North Korean. KevinUp (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Various issues with recent edits edit

  1. In this edit of 박다 (bakda), fifteen etymologies were created for fifteen different senses. These should all be combined under a single etymology header because they are descended from the same term in Middle Korean under {{ko-etym-native}}. Multiple etymologies are only used if the existing term is derived from two different terms in Middle Korean or some other language. Sino-Korean words with different hanja spellings are usually split into separate etymologies because they are sourced from different words in Middle Chinese. For more information, read Wiktionary:Etymology.
  2. Generally, only one pronunciation header is needed per entry. If there are two pronunciations, one using {{ko-ipa}} and another using {{ko-ipa|l=y}}, then multiple pronunciation sections will be needed. Specific details are as follows:
    1. If there is only a single etymology, then ===Pronunciation=== is placed after ===Etymology===
    2. If there are multiple etymologies but only a single pronunciation, then ===Pronunciation=== is placed before ===Etymology 1===
    3. If there are two different Korean pronunciations and more than one etymology, then multiple ====Pronunciation==== headers are placed after ===Etymology 1,2,3===
  3. I have a major concern regarding the claim you made of 박다 (bakda) being first attested in the Seokbo sangjeol (釋譜詳節 / 석보상절), 1447, as Middle Korean ᄇᆞᄅᆞ다 (polota) (polota). Please take a look at Scroll 6, Scroll 9, Scroll 13, Scroll 19. As you know, Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, so the original sentence needs to be verified. May I know whether this is an original claim or is this stated in some other reference book? Based on its phonology, the descendant of Middle Korean ᄇᆞᄅᆞ다 (polota) (polota) is more likely to be 바르다 (bareuda) rather than 박다 (bakda).
  4. Pasting of external web links - This should be avoided. Please read Wiktionary:Links for more information. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary works mostly with quotations as primary sources. Links are usually added here: {{quote-book|url=}}. If you make an edit and want to indicate where you obtained the information, please paste the external URL in your edit summary instead. Kindly avoid the use of <ref name> and <references/> which are more commonly used on Wikipedia.
  5. Bracket links for definitions: Usually, only nouns or important keywords are linked. Plural forms such as [[buses]] are linked to its singular form like this: [[bus]]es while verbs in present participle forms such as [[eating]] are linked to its root form like this: [[eat]]ing
  6. Entry layout: See edit here. Language headers such as ==Korean== are arranged by alphabetical order except for "Translingual" and "English" which precedes over other languages, while the divider ---- is placed between language headers. Last of all, kindly arrange native Korean etymologies before Sino-Korean etymologies for better consistency. KevinUp (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply edit

  1. Oh I see. As you can see in the 바르다 (bareuda) edit, different meanings were separated from each other, so I thought that's what I had to do. But I did not notice that etymologies were subtly different from one another(eg. ᄇᆞᄅᆞ다 and ᄇᆞ리다) I'll put it together except for the etymology from North Korea then. Thanks for checking.
  2. Oh I see. okay.
  3. That is my mistake. I brought a pattern from 바르다 (bareuda) edit, and since 박다 (bakda) and 바르다 (bareuda) look alike, it got me confused. I'll fix this.
  4. I don't remember putting on an external link to any of my edits since I talked to you last time. But if I do, I'll put them in the edit summary from now on.
  5. Oh this one I didn't know about. Thanks.
  6. I see. I'll move the Cia-Cia preposition to the top then.

Thanks for reminding me. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compounds and other metadata -- those go on the lemma (main entry) page edit

I just reverted your recent edit at . Compounds of the headword and various other metadata only goes on the lemma page. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synonyms and derived terms edit

There are various issues with this edit of 바르다 (bareuda) regarding the addition of synonyms and derived terms. This is not your fault really, but is caused by bad edits done on other similar entries by other editors that still need to be cleaned up.

Many of the synonyms listed here are plesionyms rather than synonyms. Synonyms need to be symmetric and reflexive. For example, if a sentence containing 바르다 (bareuda) is substituted by 쓰다 (sseuda) and the meaning of the sentence containing the substituted word is exactly the same as before, then 쓰다 (sseuda) can be considered a synonyms of 바르다 (bareuda). If the word is similar but not exactly the same, then it should be listed under the =====See also===== section.

On the other hand, because 바르다 (bareuda) itself has multiple meanings, synonyms that are more specific such as 올바르다 (olbareuda), 참되다 (chamdoeda), 진정하다 (jinjeonghada) will need to be listed after {{sense}} using the following syntax (Perhaps you are not yet familiar with this):

* {{sense|right; proper}} {{ko-l|올바르다}}, {{ko-l|참되다}}, {{ko-l|진정하다}}

There is also another method using {{synonyms|ko|올바르다|참되다|진정하다}} but most Korean entries don't use this method yet.

For more details regarding synonyms, see (1) Wiktionary:Semantic relations#Synonymy (2) Wiktionary:Entry layout#Synonyms.

Regarding derived terms, 바른손 (bareunson, “right hand”), 바른손잡이 (bareunsonjabi, “right hander”), 바른팔 (bareunpal, “right arm”), 바른발 (bareunbal, “right foot”) are in fact sum of parts, rather than morphological derivatives. These can be listed as usage examples using {{ko-usex}} (short phrases can also be usage examples). See also Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity for a more detailed explanation.

In case you don't know, many Korean entries created more than ten years ago such as 오른 (oreun) were very badly formatted and contained many errors and misleading information. Compare this 2007 edit with the current page. Can you spot any mistakes on the current page? KevinUp (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum edit

Header levels are nested. If there is only a single etymology section, the following is used:

====Derived terms====

If multiple etymology sections exist, the following is used instead:

===Etymology 1===
=====Derived terms=====

===Etymology 2===
=====Derived terms=====

Also, see guidelines here for additional rules such as a blank line before every header.

If there is only one pronunciation. the ===Pronunciation=== header is placed before all etymology headers.

If there are more than one pronunciation, the ====Pronunciation==== header has to be added under all etymologies. KevinUp (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response edit

'오른손' and '바른손' are "both" listed as standard language word for 'right hand' in Korea, but in a spoken language, 오른손 is almost always used to refer to right hand instead of 바른손(right hand). This is because 바른손 has been originally regarded as a dialect for 오른손 when formal Korean language system was established in 1936. However, now they are both standard Korean words for meaning right hand. For more than 50 years, until the standard language was rewritten in 1988, 바른손 was treated as 오른손's dialect. This was because 왼손(left hand) was defined as the standard language word for left, and the opposite word for 왼손(외다,wrong, archaic word for 그르다,) is 옳다(correct). It is difficult to say the opposite word for 바르다 is left, since as you pointed out, 바르다 has a multiple meanings. Also, note that 옳다 and 바르다 have slightly different nuance with each other. For example, we say 바르게 앉아라. 똑바로 앉아라(Sit up straight), but we don't say 옳게 앉아라. Another example: We say 똑바로 정면을 주시해(see it straight), but we don't say 옳게 정면을 주시해. In North Korea, "바른손을 들다"(to raise one's right hand) means to 'approve or respond in favor'. Anyway, 바른손(바른팔,바른발,바른무릎, etc..) can be sometimes spotted in Korean literatures, but is "rarely" used in Korean colloquial expression. The reason is that 바르다 has multiple meanings(eg. straight, right, to debone, cover, spread, paste, apply, etc) and when Korea first established the standard language, 바른손 was registered as a 오른손's dialect for 50 years until the standard language was rewritten in 1988, so people have been more accustomed to calling their right hand as 오른손 than 바른손.

You can also see that not only in Korea, but also in the West, it gives positive meaning to the right and negative meaning to the left. The use of the right hand suggests that it is 'right', whereas the case of left hand is shown to be erroneous in the example of sinister. Right in English, the droit in French, and the recht in German, they all mean right(correct) and right(direction) at the same time. However, this is not the case for Japan and China. To sum up, the philosophy that good, bad and unjust exist together in both hands looks like to be common regardless of the East and the West, as they give good meaning to the right, but bad meaning to the left. Maybe it's a cultural heritage of right-handed superiority that has an overwhelming number of right-handers. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I'll elaborate more on synonym parts. Thanks. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation regarding 오른손 (oreunson) and 바른손 (bareunson). Both of these entries exist on the Korean Wiktionary, so they can be created here as well, as long as it passes English Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion (more details at the bottom of this post). Since you mentioned that 바른,바른,바른,바른무릎 (bareunson,bareunpal,bareunbal,bareunmureup), etc. can sometimes be spotted in Korean literatures, but is rarely used in Korean colloquial expression, I would like to mention once again that it is highly recommended to add quotations (especially those found in permanently recorded media) compared to usage examples, which are less reliable for other editors to determine whether such entries should be included on Wiktionary or not. A good place to look for quotations would be using the following syntax:
#* {{temp|quote-book|ko|year=??|author=??|title=??|isbn=??|page=??|pageurl=|text=......|translation=......}}
Quotations are preferred because they show solid proof of a word's existence, compared to example sentences that can be added by anyone. You can also add quotations for works written in fiction or non-fiction by your favorite author. If the author has his or her own page on the Korean Wikipedia, you may use {{w2|ko|이상 (작가)|이상}} (e.g. 이상) to link to the Korean Wikipedia or {{w2|ko|s:날개|날개}} (e.g. 날개) to link to the Korean Wikisource.
Note that quotations use #* {{quote-book}} whereas usage examples use #: {{ko-usex}} — An asterix (*) instead of a semicolon (:) is used after the hash sign (#) for quotations.
I'm not sure whether 바른,바른,바른,바른무릎 (bareunson,bareunpal,bareunbal,bareunmureup) are well-attested or idiomatic enough to have their own entries, but 오른손 (oreunson) and 바른손 (bareunson) can be created if it is used specifically to refer only to the right hand of humans, rather than the right hand in general. See also tests of idiomaticity for examples of compound words in English that have passed RFD. Note that English right-hand has its own entry but no entry exists for English right hand, because the latter is considered a sum of parts in English, i.e. right + hand.
One more thing, take note that header levels have certain order/precedence, such as the following:
=====Usage notes=====
=====Derived terms=====
=====Related terms=====
=====See also=====


This order of arrangement for headers ought to be used for uniformity across entries.

Related terms are for terms are etymologically related, e.g. (jam, “sleep”) and 자다 (jada, “to sleep”) and not for terms with similar/related meanings. Terms with similar meanings such as plesionyms go into the "See also" section.
Last of all, I hope you can reduce the usage of {{ko-usex}} and replace it with {{quote-book}}. If possible, replace existing example sentences with actual quotations cited from printed publications. Some of the examples added by previous users were copied from unknown sources and need to be cleaned up. Here is a ready-made example you can use:
# [[genius]]
#* {{quote-journal|ko|year=1936|month=September|author={{w2|ko|이상 (작가)|^이상(李箱)}}|journal={{w2|ko|조광|^조광(朝光)}}|issue=11|title={{w2|ko|s:날개|^날개}}|trans-title=[[w:The Wings (Yi Sang)|]]|text=박제가 되어 버린 '''천재'''를 아시오?|translation=Have you ever seen a stuffed '''genius'''?}}
  1. genius
    • 1936 September, 이상(李箱) (Isang), “날개 (Nalgae)”, in 조광(朝光) (Jogwang), number 11:
      박제가 되어 버린 천재를 아시오?
      bakjega doeeo beorin cheonjaereul asio?
      Have you ever seen a stuffed genius?
Look for interesting words or sentences in 날개 (Nalgae) (Korean Wikisource) and replace 박제가 되어 버린 천재를 아시오? with the sentence containing the word you are looking for. You can copy the rest of the template below to make things easier:
#* {{quote-journal|ko|year=1936|month=September|author={{w2|ko|이상 (작가)|^이상(李箱)}}|journal={{w2|ko|조광|^조광(朝光)}}|issue=11|title={{w2|ko|s:날개|^날개}}|trans-title=[[w:The Wings (Yi Sang)|]]|text=......|translation=......}}
Have fun editing Wiktionary and I hope you can become a better editor! KevinUp (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the information. I'll try to add more quotations next time when I edit. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle Korean edit

BTW, we are using the Yale romanization for Middle Korean, so it is 바 "pa" instead of 바 "ba". —Suzukaze-c 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Yale romanization."(1942) does not accurately represent Korean phonology. "Revised romanization"(2000) is more closer to the actual phonology of Korean and is the official romanization of Korean system in South Korea proclaimed by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Yale romanization is used because the 2000 Revised Romanization is only designed for Modern Korean. It might be bothersome and unusual, but other Wiktionary editors decided to use Yale in the past. —Suzukaze-c 01:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Yale romanization is used because the 2000 Revised Romanization is only designed for Modern Korean Oh I see.

B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

내가 조선청년에 대하여서 세 가지로 관념을 보는데 첫째는 조선 청년에게 아주 극단으로 희망을 허는 게 있고, 둘째로는 조선청년에게 시방 현상을 보고서 극단으로 비관하는 일이 있고, 필경 셋째로는 결국의 낙관하는 하나가 있다 그 말이여 어째 조선 청년에 대해서 희망이 크다고 허는고 허니 조선 청년은 도덕상 지식이 있는 청년이여 본래 본래 사천년 내려오면서 습관이라든지 무엇으로 보던지 길러 오기를 도덕싱으로 길러 온 까닭에 그 지식이 도덕으로 자라나고 그걸 무엇으로 짐작해 보느냐 하면 시방 세계는 점점 악화돼 가서 도덕이란 건 없어지고 모두 물질만 되는 까닭에

물질이라는 것은 일상 남은 사랑하지 않고 제 이기적만 하는 까닭에 시방 물질에 욕심해 가지고 세계는 점점 악화되어 가고 해서 시방 현상으로 보더래도 심지어 육군이니 해군이니 그외에 총이니 칼이니 창이니 바다속으루는 잠함정이니 공중의 나는 비행기니 하는 것은 그게 무엇이냐 하면 조금도 백성에게 이익허는걸 하자고 마음먹은게 아니라 기어이 남은 죽이고 나만 살자는 남은 해치고 나만 위허자는 그러한 목적으로 하는 것이니까 그건 무엇으로 되어 나가느냐 하면 물질로 되어 나가 글로보게 되면 조선청년은 본래 어려서부텀 제 가정에서 훈계 받을때 부텀 네 밖에 나가거든 남하고 싸우지 말아라, 남을 해롭게 말아라, 남을 해치지 말아라, 아무쪼록이 남을 도와주고 놀라, 네가 어려운 일이 있더래도 참고 남에게 해툰 노릇은 말라고 항상 가정에서 부텀 가르쳐 논 까닭에 차차 차차 자라나서 자라날수록 그 마음이 자라나 가주구서 필경에는 장성해 살지라도 그맘이 변허지 않는 그런 도덕심이 있어 그건 하늘이 당초 품부(선천적으로 타고남)ㅎ거준 그도덕심이여 헌즉, 이 세계는 이렇게 악화되어 가는데 필경에 가서는 그 사람 죽이기 잘하는 사람과 사람살리기 좋아하는 조선 사람이란 게 남을 조끔 좀 때리거나 남한테 맞은 것은 좋아해도 그저 남 때리는 것은 아주 젤 싫어하는 것이여 그건 뭐냐 하면 도덕심으로 그런즉, 이전은 아마 이전 열국대로 허더래도 또 시방 현재의 현상과 같은 갑디다. 서로 쌈만 하고, 서로 죽이기나 하고, 서로 무기 가지고 다투거나 그카던데. 그때 양나라 양혜왕이라는 이가 맹자에게 "이 세상은 언제쯤이나 정(定)허겠소" 허고 물으니까 맹자 말씀이 "어느 때고 다 모두 통일해야 정(定)합니다"그랬어. "그럼 통일 되기를 누가 통일 허것소" 허니께 "아무 사람이라도 사람 죽이기 좋아 않은 사람이래야지 세상을 통일 합니다"그랬어요. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video date: 1927, McCune–Reischauer: 1937 Yale: 1942 Independence day: 1945 Revised: 2000 B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is ㅂ B or P? edit

Who will benefit when ㅂ is pronounced B and who will benefit when ㅂ is pronounced P? that is the question. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] This is the oldest actual pronunciation that I can find. ㅂ is pronounced as B. But I want to hear more. I want to know the true sound of ㅂ. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] The Romanization of Korean in 1959. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I think it's North Korea again.. In North Korea, ㅂ and ㅍ is all read pieup. Interesting.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's neither B nor P. It's ㅂ. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might enjoy this blog post I ran into online: An important difference between the Chinese and Japanese phonologies. Although this is looking at Japanese and Chinese, I think the core issue applies also to Korean: Korean consonantal pronunciation may be closer to Chinese than to Japanese, at least in terms of the contrast between ㅂ and ㅍ: the latter is aspirated, while the former is not. The unaspirated ㅂ can thus sound closer to Japanese voiced /b/ or Japanese unvoiced /p/, depending on the phonetic context. English speakers also generally hear the voiced ↔ unvoiced contrast better than the aspirated ↔ unaspirated contrast, which (I suspect) is the reason for the confusion about whether Korean ㅂ is closer to /b/ or /p/.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: Thanks. Korean ㅂ/ㅍ and other consonants differ from both Chinese and Japanese, since they are pronounced differently depending on the position in a word. Chinese b can have only one pronunciation, Korean ㅂ - three - word initial, middle of the word and syllable final. RR romanises the sounds as b, b and p. MR uses p, b and p. There are four sounds actually, when there’s a tensification or gemination (pp). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anatoli, your point about syllable-initial or syllable-coda position is a good one to raise. I had assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that B2V22BHARAT was looking at syllable-initial ㅂ, which I should have explicitly mentioned. Thank you for making that distinction.
Regarding the core comparison, we might be talking past each other? Phonemically, I broadly agree that there may be "only one pronunciation". However, phonetically, most (all?) languages realize the pronunciation of any single phoneme in multiple ways depending on speaker, phonetic context within a word, social context of an utterance, and various other factors. On the phonetic level, I think ㅂ contrasts with ㅍ mostly in terms of aspiration more than voicing, which (as described in the blog) is more similar to the Chinese realization of consontantal distinctions than it is to the Japanese approach. Compare compare Chinese with its initial [p] vs. with its initial [pʰ] -- the former is often parsed by English speakers as starting with /b/, while the latter is parsed as starting with /p/.
Separately, tense and geminate Korean consonants are spelled differently. In this thread, I believe that B2V22BHARAT is discussing specifically ㅂ -- the non-tense, non-geminate variety. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: I'll just give you quickly examples of what I mean with ㅂ (with ㅍ the first two will be different as well):
  1. Word initial [p]: 바람 (baram) [pa̠ɾa̠m]. RR: baram, MR: param
  2. Middle of a word [b]: 가방 (gabang) [ka̠ba̠ŋ]. RR: gabang, MR: kabang
  3. Final [p̚]: 그룹 (geurup) [kɯɾup̚]. RR: geurup, MR: kŭrup
  4. Gemination is not necessarily spelled with ㅃ but with ㅂ, if it follows another ㅂ or ㅍ, I can't find an example, something like "압바".
If you look at the first two examples only, it makes the transliteration of Korean very difficult and the discussion whether ㅂ is "B" or "P" never stops. It's more straightforward and consistent in Chinese (b=[p] and p=[pʰ]) and even simpler in Japanese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anatoli, a belated thank you for your additional examples. Re-reading this thread, I realized my original focus on word-initial ㅂ was in error. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


my Korean is indeed very poor ;u; Thank you for catching my mistakes. —Suzukaze-c 05:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's OK.. My editing skill is not as good as yours, so.. you can correct my formatting, but if you're not confident in Korean, I advise you to not touch it.. That's why I don't touch Japanese and Chinese (^^) Although my Japanese is really good(JLPT N1) B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideally, I would not touch Korean this often, but we have few active Korean editors, and no one else bothers with some of these matters... Since you are here now, perhaps I should consult with you more often.
JLPT N1, very impressive :D —Suzukaze-c 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to distinguish the meaning part, because meaning is secondary. You make up the meaning. Yes or no. The important part is in the sound. For example, 康 has 일곱번째 천간 meaning, but even though we separate this meaning, it won't have an entry, either. That's what the other dictionaries have done, too. They only separated the meaning part, when the SOUND(음훈) is different. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if I were to separate the meaning, it will go on forever.. I can create 100 meaning from 木(tree) itself, like nature, fresh, breathing, air, fixed, green, etc.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I mean by "won't have an entry" is that all the meanings are put together (like 재물,자본,바탕), but 재물,자본,바탕 is not a single word, and Wiktionary will not have a page called 재물,자본,바탕. i.e. the formatting is problematic.
We could write {{ko-hanja|[[재물]], [[자본]], [[바탕]]|자}}, which would be better, since we should have 재물, 자본, and 바탕.
However, my understanding of 음훈 is that it is a mnemonic for remembering the meaning together with the sound. Is this correct? Then 재물 자 + 자본 자 + 바탕 자 might be more useful than 재물, 자본, 바탕 자.
Alternatively, I have wondered if we should remove the 훈독 from {{ko-hanja}} completely and put it in the definition, like 椹#Korean. Then, the 훈독 would be connected with the English translation as well.
The current form of {{ko-hanja}} is a modification of old formatting, but if it is a bad idea, we don't have to keep it.
Suzukaze-c 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I like this format. I think we should convert all the Korean hanja into this format, because of the reason I said above. Alternatively, we could go like {{ko-hanja|[[재물]], [[자본]], [[바탕]]|자|this}} format, but I think this format looks more neater. I think either way would be fine, because both format emphasizes sound(fixed, only one) over meanings(variable, can be expanded). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(@KevinUp, what do you think? —Suzukaze-c 07:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]
First of all, is actually a 동자 (同字, dongja) of , so all definitions would be listed at , while the definition of would simply be "Alternative form of ".
Second of all, when it comes to hanja, I think we need to distinguish between (1) Hanja that are actually used in the Korean language, i.e. Sino-Korean words (2) Hanja used by Korean scholars for works written in literary Chinese and (3) Rare or obsolete characters such as , that are not used in Korea at all.
For (1) I usually use the Korean dictionary that can be found in the Mac computer because it allows me to search for terms using hanja instead of hangeul, but any other Korean dictionary that is not a hanja dictionary can also be used.
For (2) I would do a search on Korean Wikisource. has only one result from Shuowen while has about 25 results. can be found in literary Chinese works written by Korean scholars but appears to be used mostly as a personal name for people such as 김구경(金久冏), which is consistent with the inclusion of (, gyeong) in South Korea's 인명용한자표/人名用漢字表.
When a word is only used in literary Chinese, I find it helpful to look up the Kangxi dictionary instead, rather than modern Chinese/Korean dictionaries, because the modern meaning might be slightly distorted.
For (3) these characters should not have a "Korean" section, so technically, should not have a Korean section. However, it does appear in South Korea's 인명용한자표/人名用漢字表 as a variant form of (, gyeong), so I would add "Alternative form of " as the only definition of .
Thirdly, some of the eumhun added by other users many years ago are incorrect. For eumhun, I use the following two sites: and
For , the first site lists it as "冏과 同字" which is consistent with 인명용한자표/人名用漢字表 (2015) while the second site lists it as "烱과 通字" which is consistent with the definition found in the Kangxi Dictionary.
For , the first site lists it as "빛날 (binnal gyeong)" while the second site lists it as "빛나다(); 밝다() (binnada; bakda)".
I'm not sure where the meaning 새가 날아 다니 모양 (saega nara danineun moyang, “appearance of birds flying”) is found, but can we find actual quotations with this meaning in Korean? This definition is not found in any historical Chinese dictionaries.
Fourth of all, I don't think it is appropriate to write or create our own eumhun. We should just stick to what is found in historical sources. I am not sure what is the actual source for eumhun, but it appears to be translated from dictionaries written in Middle Chinese.
As mentioned above, we should distinguish between hanja used in the Korean language, hanja used by Korean scholars written in literary Chinese and rare/obsolete characters not used in Korea. If a particular meaning is not used in Korean, then it should not be included in the Korean section. Modern Korean dictionaries such as Han-Han Dae Sajeon (한한대사전) often include the Chinese definition so that native Korean speakers can look up the definitions of Chinese characters.
However, Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary, and we already have a separate Chinese section, so I would exclude hanja definitions that are not used in Korean. For me, the definition of would be "Alternative form of " while the definition of would be "Used in personal names" with quotations of 김구경(金久冏) from here.
Lastly, I don't think it is a good idea to use the formatting of 椹#Korean. This format seems to be similar to the format used by some modern hanja dictionaries. As mentioned above, we need to make a distinction between definitions that can be found in a Korean context and definitions that are not used in Korea. I would not like to see more than a 100 definitions for (tree) under the Korean section. Instead, I would only like to see definitions that are relevant to Korean.
For 椹#Korean, I suggest having etymology 1 with eumhun 모탕 (motang chim) + definition "chopping block" and etymology 2 with eumhun 오디 (odi sim) + definition "mulberry fruit". A search on Korean Wikisource reveals that the "chopping block" sense is not actually used in Korean but the "mulberry fruit" sense can be found in several literary Chinese works written by Korean scholars.
I found that the phonetic reading (chim) corresponds with the fanqie [ (MC trim)] listed in the Jiyun dictionary while the phonetic reading (sim) corresponds with the fanqie [ (MC zyimX)] listed in the Jiyun dictionary. Note that Guangyun only has one fanqie reading () with the definition "chopping block". I think most eumhun are translated from the Jiyun dictionary, but I cannot confirm this. Anyway, appears only in literary Chinese and does not appear to be used in the Korean language.
If anyone knows the source of all historical eumhun, or has a better idea on how to separate hanja used in literary Chinese and hanja that are actually used in the Korean language, please share your thoughts. Thanks. KevinUp (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

새가 날아 다니 모양 (saega nara danineun moyang, “appearance of birds flying”) can be found in dictionary. But you must be aware of the fact that Naver corporation did not create this alone. They outsourced it to many different companies in making dictionaries. dictionary is probably the most biggest electronic dictionary in the world. It deals with more than 38 languages and gets revised very frequently by random users who know things. For example, Open Mind Corporation made some of the digital hanja dictionary, so-called 'e-hanja' and researchers from oriental studies at Danguk University also contributed in making 한국한자어사전 (han'gukhanja'eosajeon) as well.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that various 훈음(meaning) from dictionary are already attested by many people who specialize in these fields. The problem is that you want actual source with every 훈음(meaning) part; If you can provide me wit the appropriate links where I can search, I can do that. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it is not easy to compile data for hanja, and mistakes sometimes go unnoticed. My opinion is that the hanja definitions compiled by Open Mind Corporation does unfortunately contain a small number of errors. Usually, when I encounter a word that I'm not familiar with, I would check another dictionary from a different source to see whether it has the same definition. If you look at some of my edits on Vietnamese Han characters, I search up to seven Vietnamese dictionaries just to retrieve the phonetic reading, because some modern dictionaries lists incorrect readings, while older dictionaries manage to preserve archaic or obsolete readings. And of course, Vietnamese language stopped using Han characters more than 100 years ago. Fortunately for Korean, most eumhun have corresponding definitions that can be found in the Kangxi Dictionary, and if a hanja has multiple phonetic readings, the meaning of a specific phonetic reading can be determined using 반절 (反切, banjeol, “fanqie”), e.g. → initial consonant (, sik) + mid vowel/consonant ending/tone (, im) = (sim) or → initial consonant (, ji) + mid vowel/consonant ending/tone (, rim) = (jim) (actually (chim)). Yes, extra effort is required to look up the meaning of hanja that are only used in literary Chinese works and hanja that are not used in the actual Korean language, but this is because modern dictionaries may have distorted some of the original meanings to include Mandarin definitions.
Anyway, I don't think 빛나다, 밝다, 새가 날아 다니 모양, (binnada, bakda, saega nara danineun moyang, chang) can be considered as eumhun of or , because these are modern definitions or interpretations of the hanja's meaning. My understanding is that eumhun was used as a mnemonic by Korean scholars to quickly memorize the definition of a particular hanja character, and because this was done a long time ago, eumhun is often written using archaic or slightly outdated native Korean words.
Once again, if anyone knows of any historical Korean dictionaries which lists eumhun for each hanja character, please share it so that everyone can benefit. KevinUp (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something else: Not sure what's going on here: Special:Diff/52838922/52838939 but I'll have to call in User:Suzukaze-c and User:Atitarev to intervene:
  1. Can you explain why you're defaulting back to old formatting, i.e. using {{ko-hanja|eumhun=|hangeul=충|mr=ch'im|rv=chim|y=chim}} rather than updated formatting {{ko-hanja|충}} (without eumhun) or {{ko-hanja|벌레|충}} (with eumhun) ?
  2. Why are you using obsolete formatting ([[벌레]] 충): [[bug]] for hanja definition lines instead of updated formatting {{hanja form of|충|<nowiki>[[bug]]}} ?
I hope you understand that we're trying to move forward in time, not backward in time. Many entries still use the old formatting but all of them will eventually be upgraded to the new formatting.
With regards to 인명용한자표(人名用漢字表), it is the official list of hanja that can be used for personal names in South Korea. The latest update was in 2015. It gives phonetic readings of up to 8,000 hanja and lists original readings unaffected by 두음 법칙 (頭音法則, dueum beopchik).
By the way, I've had lengthy discussions above regarding this issue: You claim that "various 훈음(meaning) from dictionary are already attested by many people who specialize in these fields.". This is regrettably, not how things work on Wiktionary. Wiktionary works by recording actual word usages. So if you can't find actual proof of word usage, then don't include it. You may discuss it on the talk page instead. Also, I just created this new template: {{ko-hanja-search}}. You can add it after ===Hanja=== and it will create a box with search links to Korean Wikisource so you can check to see if a hanja is actually used in Korea or not. If a hanja is not found in Korean Wikisource, then no Korean entry shall be created for it, unless it can be found in 인명용한자표 (2015). KevinUp (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KevinUp: Some long discussion here but I'm just responding to the ping. I am not converting the new style to the old style. I'm not using old or new single hanja style entry (or have a particular preference yet), I am just removing redundant romanisation parameters (|mr=, etc.) when I see them when editing Chinese entries - doing this in passing. I should use the new style though. Please let me know what the new style should be for entries with or without 음훈 (eumhun). Probably a question to Suzukaze-c. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev: Previously, there were two templates, {{ko-hanja}} (with the old redundant romanizations) and {{ko-hanja/new}}. Eventually, Suzukaze-c moved the old {{ko-hanja}} template to {{ko-hanja/old}} and created {{ko-hanja}} as a new merger template that is compatible with parameters from both "old" and "new" templates. So you can just remove redundant romanizations from {{ko-hanja}} and everything is still fine. The real issue is eumhun. These need to be edited manually and some are incorrect. Do you know what is the original source of all eumhun? I'm using and and also the Kangxi dictionary to verify the phonetic readings. KevinUp (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Is this the old formatting? Me and Suzukaze-c discussed about this matter and decided to use this format. What do you mean I'm going back to the old formatting?

2. Can you explain me what the new formatting is?

3. Yes, that's what I'm trying to do here, from April 3th(the first day I stepped on wiktionary)

4. 인명용한자표(人名用漢字表) applies to only people's names, right? Then what about other numerous hanjas? By the way, 인명용한자표(人名用漢字表) was recently updated in 2018.

5. Does that rule also applied to Chinese and Japanese documents, also? I encountered many Japanese and Chinese meaning without quotes.

Also, please contact me in my talkpage if you want me to follow your format. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I understand that you have your style, but is my editing wrong then? I'm not making things up, just bringing what is written in dictionary; that's it. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I just looked at your edit history, and you don't contribute to wiktionary that much; I don't know if you're busy or not, but I hope you can contribute to wiktionary more. I don't think it's right to tackle someone who puts much more time than you to wiktionary by saying that you're wrong when you're not contributing that much. You know what I mean? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because, to me, it looks like you don't want things to be changed. You're being conservative. I hope you can contribute to wiktionary(especially Korean part) more with your knowledge and skills. Best, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. You have contributed a lot on April 18th and 20th. I didn't see this. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, please answer this question: I encountered many Japanese and Chinese hanja meaning without quotes. Why are you being so strict about Korean hanja usages? Is it because in Korea, we don't use hanja that much? that's not true. We use hanja all the time, but it's just converted into hangul(Korean). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Usually, before any lasting changes are made, editors would discuss among themselves to reach a concensus, then someone will post at the Beer Parlour to seek opinion from a wider audience, also to gain feedback from editors that are working on different languages.
If you look at the discussion above, I'm not sure whether Suzukaze-c actually decided or agreed to use the format of 椹#Korean. Suzukaze-c was wondering "whether we should remove the 훈독 from {{ko-hanja}} completely and put it in the definition, like 椹#Korean".
2. Old formatting usually means formatting from 2006 to 2013 before we had talented programmers contributing on Wiktionary. Back then a lot of information was manually entered. During that time, there was one editor who introduced plenty of nonsense such as Altaic etymologies, nonstandard formatting such as this 2013 edit on 椹#Korean and minor issues such as wrong header levels. Up until last year, we still had Wyang (a much more talented editor than me) cleaning up and creating plenty of new Korean entries. However, Wyang left at the start of the year. Many of these old entries still needs to be cleaned up, while irrelevant information need to be removed, which is why we have maintenance categories such as this: Category:Korean terms without ko-IPA template. Unfortunately, some of the old 2006-2012 mistakes such as excessive {{ko-usex}} appeared in your edits as well because you were new and following the existing format so I had to point out some of these to you.
3. New formatting can be loosely referred as what was implemented by Wyang and several other programmers from 2012/2013 onwards. For example, before May 2018, there was only one template for hanja: {{ko-hanja/old}} with manually entered romanization. This was bad because the romanization needs to be entered manually. So Suzukaze-c created {{ko-hanja/new}} and romanization is now automatically generated using only Revised Romanization while the other romanizations such as Yale Romanization can be found at the Hangeul entries using {{ko-ipa}}, which is why I've been adding and creating some Hangeul entries as you've noticed. The problem we have is that there are now two hanja templates: {{ko-hanja|eumhun=|hangeul=충|mr=ch'im|rv=chim|y=chim}} and {{ko-hanja|충}}. The former one is the old formatting while the latter is the new formatting. As for eumhun, we have not really decided on this yet, so a Beer Parlour discussion might be more appropriate.
4. Although 인명용한자표(人名用漢字表) was originally intended for people's names it has expanded over the years to include almost all hanja that is used in the Korean language. There are many hanja that are unsuitable for people's names such as (, si, “corpse”), (, gan, “to fornicate”). In contrast, the Japanese could only use 2136+863 (2999 kanji) for their personal names, and up to nine sensitive characters were removed from Jinmeiyō kanji (人名用漢字) in 2004. I think the Supreme Court of South Korea has done a great job in compiling 인명용한자표(人名用漢字表) because it is an up-to-date list of hanja used in the Korean language and contains almost all of the important hanja. Besides a few rare 국자 (國字, gukja, “hanja invented in Korea”), the remaining 40,000 hanja not in that list are rare or archaic Chinese characters found only in historical Chinese dictionaries such as the Kangxi dictionary.
5. Actually, this rule applies to all languages. Ideally, all lemmas need to have quotations and this will be achieved eventually. Exceptions are allowed for endangered languages or languages with limited documentation. These languages use a special template: {{LDL}}. If you encounter Chinese or Japanese entries without quotations, you may use {{rfquote}} or {{rfquote-sense}} to request for quotations for these entries. Actually I'm not strict about Korean (한국말 (han'gungmal)) I'm just concerned about the usage of Korean hanja and Vietnamese Hán tự. Initially, both Korean and Vietnamese used Classical Chinese as their written language while maintaining their mother tongue as their spoken language before developing their own writing system. In fact, I find Korean scholars tough because they maintained usage of literary Chinese up until the 19th century even after Hangeul was invented and they didn't simplify any of the hanja. Even until today, modern South Korean hanja is still much more similar to the original characters found in the 1716 Kangxi Dictionary compared to Traditional Chinese used in Taiwan/Hong Kong.
My main concern is, how do we differentiate between characters used only in literary Chinese and characters that have been borrowed into 한국말 (han'gungmal) and tiếng Việt? For Vietnamese it is slightly more complicated because Vietnamese has tones and Vietnamese texts are not yet fully digitized. However, Korean doesn't have tones, preserved many of the original Middle Chinese meanings, and managed to digitized many historical texts written in literary Chinese by Korean scholars. The reason why I'm being fussy about hanja entries is because there are not many people editing hanja and I prefer to have good examples set up for future editors to replicate. I don't think it is a good idea to follow those 2008-2012 edits which appear to be copied directly from with little modification. KevinUp (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. There is no format or rule set up by KevinUp. I'm just following the rules set up by people before me. I didn't set up {{ko-hanja}} or {{hanja form of}}. Those rules were established by other editors. I think if Wyang was still here, more changes would be made to Korean entries.
No, your editing style is not wrong, but things need to be much more consistent regarding Korean entries, which is why there is a need to clean and remove all outdated edits. If you look into Category:Korean terms without ko-IPA template you will find some badly formatted entries that haven't been edited for a long time.
7. So once again, if you see any Chinese or Japanese entries without quotations, you may use {{rfquote}} or {{rfquote-sense}} to request for quotations. You can also use to look for actual Chinese quotations. To be much more frank, I think literary Chinese texts such as 조선왕조실록 (朝鮮王朝實錄) are written in the Chinese language and other editors, especially those working with the Chinese language would probably consider such texts to be written in the Chinese, and would want to place them as Chinese quotations rather than Korean quotations. I'm just nice enough to transliterate each hanja to Hangeul so that Korean readers can still read it.
Yes, I do agree that Koreans use hanja all the time, except it's often converted to Hangeul. In contrast, colloquial Japanese speech or daily conversations in Japanese uses less kanji terms because many kanji are homonyms. I found that hanja can be represented by up to 480 Hangeul in Korean whereas kanji can only be represented by a maximum of 102 sounds or less in Japanese.
8. Last of all, I have plenty of things to do in real life, which is why I am currently not so active. Here, have a beer 🍺. Cheers to you and have a great week ahead! 🍻 KevinUp (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow it seems that you've been here for a long time.. Okay thanks man. I will try to read what you wrote many times to improve my English skills. I think my English improved a little thanks to you. We're all busy in real life, which is unfortunate. I hope other people(Korean scholars) participate and contribute to wiktionary, because I'm actually in totally different field. Anyway, thanks man have a nice day. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transliteration errors edit

You made way too many errors in the romanisations in the {{ko-etym-native}} template. It's Yale Romanisation of Old Hangul; please make sure you read template documentation before you use it. It seems you are just transliterating at a whim. This is not good enough.

I've fixed the most recent 100 entries with that template added but there are possibly other mistakes as well. Please fix all your previous edits. Wyang (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wyang What error? Please specify. Thank you. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyang I know that it's Yale romanization of Old Hangul. I'm using this site. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyang I made the mistake when I didn't know Wikionary well in the beginning. Thank you for correcting the transliteration error. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyang May I know which site you are using for Yale romanization of old hangul? I will correct them. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyang Also, I just looked at your edit history, and not all of the words were edited by me. I love competition. Let's compete each other in order to improve Wiktionary. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyang I saw Kevinup's format and just copied it. No one touched him, so I thought his format was correct. Of course, there are my mistakes that I didn't check properly, so I think I got a week's suspension.
B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you got suspended for incorrectly adding {{ko-ipa|l=y}} to entries without long vowels. Also, my edits here and here had nothing to do with the incorrect Yale romanization. Let me mention once again that Wiktionary is a collaborative project. Editors make mistakes occasionally, we also correct mistakes made by others. I have already corrected the incorrect mistakes made by other editors (some before 2018) and compiled the correct forms here. We can improve the quality of Wiktionary by correcting mistakes (regardless of who did it). KevinUp (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. I remember Wyang gave me a week long block for not knowing the difference between {{ko-ipa}} and {{ko-ipa|l=y}}. I think it is difficult for beginners to notice these trivial things. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stdict.korean etymology sections edit

The NIKL dictionary (, which is the first dictionary you will see on Naver ("Naver dictionary" isn't a thing), marks the first attestation of a Middle Korean form fully cognate to the modern form. "Cognate" does not mean "ancestral."

For a different example, ᄯᅡᇂ (Yale: stah) is marked as the Middle Korean form of (ttang), but the latter does not come directly from the former. As you can see with other /ah/-final nouns in Appendix:Middle Korean h-final nouns, the expected Modern reflex of ᄯᅡᇂ is , not . Instead, the Modern form descends from another descendant of the ancestral form *sotak, which was cognate to Middle Korean ᄯᅡᇂ. For more on this, see this paper.

The same applies to 바다 (bada). Middle Korean had both 바닿〮 (Yale: patah) and 바ᄅᆞᆯ〮 (Yale: palol), which were both terms cognate to modern 바다 (bada). So the NIKL dictionary lists both. However, only the former could have produced Modern 바다 (bada) given the sound changes we are working with; the latter should have produced 바를 (bareul), which is indeed a word in Jeju. So the thing to get from this is that the NIKL etymology section does not always list direct ancestors. As our etymology sections are much more extensive than the NIKL's one-liners, we can afford to distinguish between direct ancestors and simple cognate forms.

If you go on the NIKL's old etymological dictionary now ported on, you see that they do the same thing as me:

현대 국어 ‘바다’의 옛말인 ‘바닿’은 15세기 문헌에서부터 나타난다... 18세기에는 ‘바다에’와 같이 모음으로 시작하는 조사가 결합할 때에도 ‘바닿’이 아닌 ‘바다’가 등장하면서 현재에 이르렀다. 한편 중세국어 시기에는 ‘바닿’와 동일한 의미를 지닌 ‘바ᄅᆞᆯ〮’도 존재하였다.

Thus they note the existence of 바ᄅᆞᆯ〮 (Yale: palol), but they make it clear that it is not the ancestor of the modern form.

As an addendum, as I mentioned earlier, the NIKL dictionary only marks the first Hangul attestation. Thus the "용가" tag next to 바ᄅᆞᆯ〮 (Yale: palol) only means that the 용비어천가 was the first Hangul attestation (not even the very first attestation, since we have Old Korean 海等), not that it was otherwise special in any way. Hence, we do not need to mark this.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya Okay. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stdict.korean and labels edit

The NIKL dictionary at (please stop calling this the "Naver dictionary") doesn't consistently mark labels like "rare", "uncommon", etc. whereas we do, so we have to do it ourselves.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya 고환을 '일상적'으로 이르는 말.
일상적= colloquial. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NIKL dictionary at doesn't consistently mark labels like "rare", "uncommon", etc. whereas we do, so we have to do it ourselves. For example, they have an entry for 조조 (祚祚, jojo, “fortunate descendants”) which is not in any way marked as an unusual or rare word. The NIKL dictionary is seriously lacking in contextual information and we do ourselves no favors by mindlessly aping it.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Naver Dictionary(or NIKL dictionary) does mark labels like 방언 (bang'eon), 은어 (euneo), 비속하게 이르는 말 (bisokhage ireuneun mal), etc. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@B2V22BHARAT, the NIKL does not consistently mark rare or uncommon usages, so native speakers have to add this information ourselves. I'm not sure why you're denying this. Furthermore, in your most recent edit, you added another spurious etymological claim, that (bul) is an "abbreviation" of 불알 (bural) when in fact it's the other way around. Please don't do this.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karaeng Matoaya What are you talking about? (bul) and 불알 (bural) all mean testicles. They are native Koreans, unlike 고환 (gohwan), which is borrowed from Chinese. The (bul) has testicle meaning, and (al) just means an egg, so it can bee seen that (bul) is abbreviation for 불알 (bural). Also see NIKL. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@B2V22BHARAT, 불알 (bural) is a compound of (bul) and (al). An abbreviation is a derivation in the other direction. This is a basic competence issue. Please also respond to the point that the NIKL does not mark rare or uncommon usages.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be more careful with editing edit

(ba, “rope”) was already in the entry, as Etymology 4 ("(straw or hemp) rope; tether"). Furthermore, please be careful with Template:ko-pos; "rope" is not a dependent noun.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop 사기치다 (sagichida). (ba, “rope”) does not mean straw or hemp or tether. It's rope. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor understanding of MK h-final nouns edit

B2V22BHARAT, you seem to be under the misconception that the Middle Korean dictionaries ported at Naver (which the NIKL doesn't even maintain any more) are somehow exhaustive of the Middle Korean language. This is not the case. Heo 1975, Yi 2010, and Park 2018 all offer slightly different lists of h-final nouns, none of which are totally covered by Naver:

  • Heo 1975 gives 머맇 (Yale: melih) which is not in Naver
  • Yi 2010 gives (Yale: pah) which is not in Naver
  • Park 2018 gives 더ᇰ욿 (Yale: tengwulh) which is not in Naver

You should not be basing your etymological research on Naver. Naver is not, in fact, the be-all-end-all of Korean etymologies.

Furthermore, you keep adding spurious information. What do you have to say about the following cases of clear /h/-loss in the earliest Hangul sources?

  • 돌도 and not 돌토 in 구급방언해 2:39
  • 겨ᅀᅳ리어든 and not 겨ᅀᅳᆯ히어든 in 월인석보 25:15
  • 하ᄂᆞ래 and not 하ᄂᆞᆯ해 in 석보상절 6:35

The sporadic loss of /h/ was clearly ongoing at the time of Hangul's invention. Park 2018, which I linked above, covers this.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm just pointing about that fact that is not attested as *밯 (Yale: pah) and this is an exception. All of the Korean vocabularies you showed in the are attested to have 받침 except for the . Please check. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the evidence that it's not attested? Yi 2010 does not deal with reconstructions, and Naver is not an exhaustive resource of Middle Korean.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you can show to the readers the actual historical record that used (bat) as the meaning of rope. Even so, it's like utilizing 바닥 (badak) (which are only attested in the certain parts of the Southern Korean peninsula) to claim 바다 (bada) came from *바닥, when there are other numerous forms of the dialects of 바다 (bada), such as 바당(경상, 제주, 함경) (badang(gyeongsang, jeju, hamgyeong)), 바닥(경남, 전남) (badak(gyeongnam, jeonnam)), 바래(경북) (barae(gyeongbuk)), 바대(경상) (badae(gyeongsang)),바르(제주) (bareu(jeju)), 바를(제주) (bareul(jeju)), 바릇(제주) (bareut(jeju)), 와당(제주) (wadang(jeju)), 바림(함남) (barim(hamnam)) etc. Anyway, I'm kind of worn out by your Proto-language theory that is backed-up by sample biased scholar's academic journal. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Yi 2010, p. 166:
ㅎ말음 체언의 말음 /ㅎ/이 /k/에서 온 것임은 양주동(1942), 이기문(1972/1998), 도수희(1980), 김완진(1980), 김방한(1983), 김동소(1995) 등의 논의를 통해 확인한 바 있다.
These aren't nobodies or "sample biased scholars". 양주동 was the vanguard Korean linguist, 이기문 is the Korean historical linguist of the twentieth century who wrote both <국어사개설> and Cambridge University's History of the Korean Language, and without 김완진 we might still not know how to read Old Korean.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't care who the scholar is. If there is no historical usage of *밯 (Yale: pah), then it's proto-language. Therefore, you should put * next to the word. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And can't you read Korean text properly? The above scholars are saying that only when the words end in ㅎ, then it should be assumed to have come from ㄱ. The premise does not apply to (Yale: pa) because there is no historical usage of *밯 (Yale: pah) as a meaning of rope. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You kept doubting *patak, which is why I provided that. In addition, you have offered no evidence that (Yale: pah) is unattested.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you're given this much of time and haven't found one record of *밯 (Yale: pah) as the meaning of rope clearly substantiates the fact that (Yale: pa) came from (Yale: pa) itself, not *밯 (Yale: pah). Therefore, *밯 (Yale: pah) is a proto-language. You're relying too much on the scholars' work. They are humans. They sometimes make mistakes. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And needless to say, I respect all the scholars you mentioned in the above's great contributions in finding the history of Korean linguistics. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The MK corpus is very large, especially once you take the sixteenth century into account, and the significant majority of texts are not digitized, so I cannot readily find individual word attestations nor have I tried to. I have given an academic source that states that (Yale: pah) is attested. What is your evidence otherwise?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you find the actual record of *밯 (Yale: pah), then we can erase the * sign next to it. But I doubt it, because the form of (Yale: pah) is unlike others that have 받침 next to . If you find the actual evidential usage of *밯 (Yale: pah) as the meaning of rope, let me know. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop assuming that access to Naver makes you capable of doing etymological research on Middle Korean.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya Of course I can. As long as I have the appropriate Korean reference, I can contribute to Korean Wiktioary as well. Also, please correct these errors that I have marked failed. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still haven't understood what I'm saying, and have still presented no evidence that is unattested. You need to stop thinking that Naver is an exhaustive resource of Middle Korean and that you can become an expert on Middle Korean just by reading the dictionaries ported on Naver.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also cannot present the evidence that is attested. Therefore, you should put the Proto-language sign next to it. Also for , I think they're talking about the as a 흰쌀, not the definition for this. You should change this definition, also. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing Wiktionary links and turning them into Wikipedia links edit

Why are you doing this? This goes against precedent in other languages:

This also makes it difficult for users because things like "bear" and "brown bear" are basic terms that do not need a Wikipedia reference, and because the translation hubs for these terms that link to the equivalents in other languages are on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.

Your Wikipedia links have had to be manually removed by another editor on 피카츄 and 푸들 as well.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya Reply: I have spotted other users linking definition to Wikipedia including you. In your recent edit,, you have linked 참나물 and 참게 to Wikipedia site. Please avoid the double-standard. Thank you. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike "bear" and "poodle", "Chinese mitten crab" and Pimpinella brachycarpa are not basic terms that any English speaker would reasonably know.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karaeng Matoaya Is there any strict rules regarding linking definition of the word to Wikipedia? If not, I'll just leave as it is. :) B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karaeng Matoaya I've reverted those. It's obvious that B2V22BHARAT was just fooling around with those pointless edits. Hope that helps. RcAlex36 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

왜국 edit

What is your evidence that this term is vulgar, and not simply derogatory as marked on NIKL?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya.... please see my edit again. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]