Contents

Talk:Gyeongbokgung

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Korea High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Architecture: Historic houses High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Joseon Dynasty#Architecture|Joseon Dynasty architecture]] The anchor (#Architecture) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I never heard that Gyeongbok palace is still used by the ex-royal family of Chosun dynasty. They don't live there. I corrected it but somebody changed it back.

No, I haven't either. Now it turns to be a museum. --Aphaea 00:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced the picture with the old version. I like the new picture, too, but its licence is unclear. Also, the old picture is a featured picture... Kokiri 18:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several sections of the article appeared to be in violation of copyright regulations. The material appears to have been copied from the following source: [1], among others. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material. I have removed the sections of copyrighted material, and after some time, I will be deleting them from the page history in order to remove the precense of copyrighted material from the Wiki. However, the material is in the page history for now, if anyone wants to try and re-write the information to not be in copyright violation. Please do not re-add copyrighted material to the article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This royal palace along with others in Seoul has been called in several spelling such as below

1. Gyeongbokgung (original name)
2. Gyeongbokgung Palace
3. Gyeongbok Palace

so I move it back to the original title to discuss it for the matter. I think this naming matter is associated with other suffixes such as san (산 mountain), sa or am (사, 암, Buddhist temple), so this can't be simply spelled. --Appletrees (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wiki rule on languages states to use English. Gryffindor (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeongbokgung → Gyeongbok Palace — gung is palace in English, move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Gryffindor (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose See WT:NC-KO#Naming convention for palaces and others You've been quite for what instead of participation in the discussion for 8 months although I clearly suggested you to do so in the edit summary.[2] You also unilaterally changed the categories of Korean royal palaces on Commons, and I shall request them to be back.--Caspian blue 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also incorrectly moved UnhyeongungtoUnhyeon Palace. Gung does not only refer to "palace" in Korean.--Caspian blue 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The hanja for "gung" is "宮", which translates from Chinese into palace, see also Weiyang Palace, where the article is not named "Wèiyāng Gōng". The discussion in your Korean talk page does not mean it can override overall Wiki rules of usage of English. Gryffindor (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hanja, gung has many meanings other than 'palace' that you do not know. Some of hanja, Chinese characters have been adapted or used with a slightly different meaning for Korean language, so the Chinese comparison for Unhyeongung does not quite fit. Moreover, Korean Project page is not "Korean talk page" (well, no discussion in Korean). When you makes changes likely to induce other naming changes in mass, would you first discuss with editors in related projects? Your unilateral moves of other location categories against the Italian naming conventions have been contested by Commons admins as well.--Caspian blue 19:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Britannica, Encarta and Encyclopedia Columbia uses "- Palace". As for Unhyeongung, although I can't find references it those encylopedias, Korea.net[3] as well as JoongAng Diary [4] translate the word as "palace". I support for Unhyeon Palace as well per WP:ENGLISH. --Kusunose 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So per Common name, "Gyeongbokgung" is "most widely used ENGLISH name" so far if you check on the link above. Unhyeongung is also translated into "Unhyeongung Royal residence" or many others. Please do not cherry-pick but present all alternatives from reliable sources. I want to ask you; why don't you request for move on Buddhist temples in Japan such as Horyu-ji? Britannica and many other English sources translate it into Horyu Temple. So please show me your consistent approach to the naming convention.--Caspian blue 03:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Use Gyeongbokgung Palace, since "gung" is not an English word, and many foreign locations with "xxx y" have "xxx y y-inEnglish" as article names. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Caspian Blue. "Gyeongbok Palace" does not appear to be any more commonly used in English than "Gyeongbokgung", and we shouldn't be using English translations if they aren't 100% accurate. PC78 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Among other sources, signs at the complex refer to Gyeongbokgung. See evidence presented at a previous similar move request at Talk:Changdeokgung. — AjaxSmack 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why would a dead queen need quarters? Do you mean the Queen Dowager (taebimama)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.223.181 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As title. Huge chunks of it have no sources and have some formatting/style issues. The names of individual buildings in the body don't need to be bolded. toobigtokale (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]