Category talk:ko:North Korea
Add topicLatest comment: 15 years ago by Jusjih
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
It was an alternative version of Category:North Korean; now it is empty. Daniel. 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no. By our naming standards, this is the category for Korean geographical words pertaining to North Korea. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- By our context template naming standards,
{{North Korea}}should be used when a word is mainly used on North Korea, regardless of the subject. All words in this category were added using this template. Additionally, perhaps Korean geographical words pertaining to North Korea would be better contextualized with{{North Korea|geography}}.Daniel. 09:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- By our context template naming standards,
- Well, that would refer to a geographical term used (primarily/solely) in North Korea. In due time (when we have enough entries), we will probably want to have a Category:North Korean geography and matching context label, for words like ???? ("workers' district") which are used only in reference to North Korean geography. That would allow us to correctly tag the South Korean spelling, ????, as
{{South Korea|North Korean geography}}; this is headache-inducing but accurate. The same would apply mutatis mutandis to the case below. -- Visviva 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that would refer to a geographical term used (primarily/solely) in North Korea. In due time (when we have enough entries), we will probably want to have a Category:North Korean geography and matching context label, for words like ???? ("workers' district") which are used only in reference to North Korean geography. That would allow us to correctly tag the South Korean spelling, ????, as
Delete, andthanks to Daniel for cleaning this up. -- Visviva 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)- You're welcome, Visviva. Daniel. 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because it does not contain entries is not reason to delete it. Aren't there any Korean entries for places in North Korea that could be categorized here? --EncycloPetey 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a good point. Our Category:Countries structure is rather underdeveloped at the moment, but there are plenty of iconic-in-Korean North Korean placenames that deserve entries (though only Pyongyang and Diamond Mountain come to mind as possible English entries). Keep, I guess (and likewise for the one below). -- Visviva 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with EncycloPetey: if a category deserves entries, it should be kept. However, it leads us to another question: our regional context templates (
{{Spain}},{{Portugal}},{{India}}, etc. - and even,{{North Korea}}) are used to contextualize terms solely or mainly used in those places. How will we contextualize words used in reference of North Korean geography? This is important information that ought to be part of the entry, not just a category link. Would this definition be desirable? - Pyongyang
- 1. (North Korean geography) The capital city.
- If yes, perhaps we should have a Category:North Korean geography (and a Category:ko:North Korean geography), as said before. And Category:North Korean foods, etc. Daniel. 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The context isn't needed at all. The city has the same name when spoken of by either North or South Koreans. The regional context templates only apply when a word's use is limited to a particular region or dialect. The physical location of the referent is immaterial and does not require context. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with EncycloPetey: if a category deserves entries, it should be kept. However, it leads us to another question: our regional context templates (
- This is a good point. Our Category:Countries structure is rather underdeveloped at the moment, but there are plenty of iconic-in-Korean North Korean placenames that deserve entries (though only Pyongyang and Diamond Mountain come to mind as possible English entries). Keep, I guess (and likewise for the one below). -- Visviva 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)