Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Needs Korean. 17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Looks like it's done. -- Liliana 06:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

zhao1 xian1[edit]

@Justinrleung Do you have a source for this pronunciation? I don't think I have heard it before. (also 朝鮮語) Wyang (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: It's from Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks. I think it's another prescribed literary reading by the MoE of Taiwan. I labelled it as "etymologically correct variant, obsolete and literary". Wyang (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail in the definitions[edit]

@LlywelynII, Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Tooironic, Atitarev, do we actually need that much detail in the definitions? It kind of goes against WT:EL#Variations for languages other than English. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts too. Wyang (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I oppose those "corrections". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I will not comment on LlywelynII's edits. —suzukaze (tc) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the amount of detail at the moment is OK. A bit of cleaning up might help, but it's still a useful entry IMO. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, obviously I think that this is the appropriate level of detail for these senses and an improvement on what went before.

For my part, I'm rather perplexed at why three of you seem to think that removing acknowledgedly valid senses is the way to go or how you assume it's helpful to our readers. — LlywelynII 08:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
WT:EL specifies that senses of English and non-English words are formatted differently- English entries should have a more sentence-like, explanatory style for senses, whereas non-English entries use a translation dictionary-like style for senses, using equivalents in English when possible, and {{gloss}} for clarification when needed.
As far as I know, sense 1 of the current entry (朝鮮) is semantically equivalent to English Gojoseon, so it should simply be written as:
# (historical) Gojoseon
or at most
# (historical) Gojoseon (ancient Korean kingdom)
Similarly for sense 2.
For senses 3.1 – 3.3, they should not be merged under “Joseon”, as “Joseon” in English very rarely means things other than the ancient Korean dynasty. Compare google:"Joseon peninsula" (643) vs google:"Korean peninsula" (10,400,000).
Sense 3.1 should just be “North Korea (country)” (with the appropriate regional label).
Sense 3.2 should just be “Korea (historical state and cultural concept)”, again probably with a regional label. I'm not sure the “usually...” part is correct. See 朝鲜 (称谓).
Sense 3.3 should be “(~半島) Korean Peninsula”.
Wyang (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)