User talk:Jisok

DLP (Korea)

Most strangely, I noticed the Korean sources, including the party's own website, use *both*, sometimes even within the space of a single page. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the "ou" spelling, as did several academic journals checked with Proquest (including, paradoxically, American ones) and the official news agencies of both Taiwan and Japan. Found two academic journals with the Labor spelling, as well as a couple of international left-wing newsfeeds and english.chosun.com (which however *consistently* uses US spelling for everything, so this may be a style guide issue). Orderinchaos 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so you think it's just style and can be used interchangeably, right? Then, at least, no reason not to use the "Labor" name, eh? (Moreover, D. Labor is the name in the party constitution.) I'll re-revert it. If you disagree, re-re-revert with your "reliable" sources. Jisok (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was citing what had been done within Korea itself. I was suggesting that the Chosun publication had an enforced style guide. I used to work for a media organisation and they had some extremely strange rules put in place solely for the purpose of consistency across programs and written communication. The fact several other Korean sites use both spellings on the same page suggests there is perhaps a need for this within the Korean media. What they do, however, has little applicability to what we do here, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not a local news service with an English-publishing arm.

Revert warring is generally considered an unacceptable way of resolving a dispute. Wikipedia also has a guideline WP:ENGVAR, which states essentially that changing between varieties of English (in this case, from International to US) is not generally recommended, and that the preferred version is usually the first used (in this case, what was in the article prior to last month), or the predominant form of English in the region if an English-speaking country, which Korea is not. Especially when Britannica, which has a lot more research resources than we have to dedicate to this, has chosen the -u- spelling, I'd be loath to change it back.

Additionally, international agreements which the party has signed in its official capacity such as the Seoul Declaration, a petition against the Korea-Japan FTA, not to mention a speech given by the president on a Korean-hosted site, the official media service of Taiwan (a territory which normally uses US English), (North) Korea News Service, Reuters and Reporters sans frontières. There's also cites in at least 15 journals, a conference paper and two books. Orderinchaos 13:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add S Korea or any other country as a specific. There is a disambiguation link there for a reason. Timeshift (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean party is specific in that it has one of two parties with the name Democratic "Labor" Party. Think about this case: you go "Democratic Labor Party" of Australia, and reached a page not you look for; then you click DISAMB; then again you click what you want. If you think it looks good, I'll do: moving Democratic Labor Party to Democratic Labor Party of Australia; moving KDLP to Democratic Labor Party with a link to DISAMB. —jisok 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering our DLP has a bigger history than yours - umm, no. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mine. I just want an info without too much links or clicks. —jisok 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Korean name

Hello, Jisok, I've notice that the template is changed and it looks weird and has too many space although I don't like the previous template and alway thought that it should be remade. However, you did not even notice the big change to the Korean community and have any prior discussion with people. I will revert yours until this matter raises at WP:KO. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I moved your templates to your page.(User:Jisok/Sandbox and User:Jisok/Sandbox) If you think they're unnecessary after the discussion, you can simply put {{delete}} tag on the subpages. If you do, administrators will take care of your request. Thank you for the contributions. --Appletrees (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Jisok (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. Would it be better if the template have "logo", "map" and "picture" of cities or dong in South Korea as the exmaples? It could show so vividly how the current infobox is hideous. But I don't know hot to make it. --Appletrees (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check User:Jisok/Sandbox#Suwon and User:Jisok/Sandbox1#Suwon. Not very impressive, though. (Sandbox1 version is made by just un-bordering and line-height setting. Nothing else.) Jisok (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you for your effort. Honestly, I think the placement order of those images should be rearranged. Look at the logo position. Is it awkward compared to that of Boston and Tokyo article? Can you move the logo image below from the Suwon picture and place in the center? If you do so, the result would be great. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. You might do it yourself - by edit preview. (I have no secret in doing the job. It's copy&paste. :) Jisok (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so far, but if I knew how to do it, I would not ask anybody a favor for the matter. That is also not convenient for myself. --Appletrees (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Korea Party

I called to the party office, and the officer said "CKP was former name. We changed our english name to RKP". Thanks for your advice. adidas (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]