Talk:East Sea/Archive 4

Just to make sure

I thought there was consensus on Bridesmill's format. The only debate over the last several weeks was over the wording of the first line. Tortfeasor 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, the compromise was conditional, dependent on the wording. Since you disagreed on the wording, there was no consensus. Whatever wording you prefer, please do a poll do get wider consensus.--Endroit 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the overall format was dependent on the actual wording of the first sentence because no one expressed that concern in the talk. An informal poll, like the one that was kosher at Hideyoshi's invasion, would suggest that Bridesmill, me, Appleby (does his/hers count still), Kusonose, Fagstein, Nlu, Cla68, Goodfriend all seemed fine with the general format. The only person who has expressed being against Bridesmill's original compromise that re-jump-started discussion is you, Endroit, and you only mentioned that today. Tortfeasor 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Planning for a Poll: To determine if Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute should be listed separately

There will be a poll to determine if Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute should be listed separately at the top. If listed separately, it will use the "East Sea is" wording. If listed together with the others, it will use the "East Sea may refer to" wording, but will still be at the top of the list. We will follow the guidelines of the poll being conducted at Talk:Sea of Japan right now, unless there are any other suggestions. I will start the poll after we discuss this further for another 5 days.--Endroit 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a formal poll for the moving of the Imjin War article to Hideyoshi's Invasions? Tortfeasor 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The status quo there is already "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea". You can start a poll to move it to "Imjin War".--Endroit 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going by what was okay with what happened over there. If you have a problem with it here, logically you should have a problem with what happened there. Tortfeasor 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the 2 articles are related at all. And the consensus was already clear in Talk:Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea, but not here in this article. However, just to make sure, ask the others people in both discussions. Does anybody think "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and "East Sea" are related at all? And why?--Endroit 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I take it back ;) Tortfeasor 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a poll about the wording of the first sentence? or Is this a poll about the fact that the de facto usage is listed first and then the other usages are listed as "may refer to". I don't think the too issues were ever linked until today. Tortfeasor 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already made my suggestion in the first paragraph above: It's whether to list separately ("is" wording) or together with others ("may refer to" wording), as I said. However, I would like Fagstein, Bridesmill, and others to determine which would be the status quo, and whether it should be a 60% supermajority-required-to-change poll or a 50-50 either/or poll.--Endroit 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the "is" wording case (separated) can be tied in with Tortfeasor's suggested wording, if Tortfeasor prefers that. But the "may refer to" wording case (together) should be left open for further discussion. What do you think?--Endroit 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm confused. ;) How bout the last version by you or the last version by me in the history for the basis of the poll? Tortfeasor 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems OK to me at this point. I'd like to see what other people say also before we start the poll.--Endroit 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds good to me. Tortfeasor 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and tradition implies that it's separate at top when there is a primary meaning. Since East Sea is a disambiguation page and not a redirect we can infer that there is no primary meaning and it should not be listed separately. If we want to apply a primary meaning, we should also make "East Sea" a redirect and move this page to "East Sea (disambiguation)". Fagstein 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mare Orientale

I removed the entry; we have an adjective 'Oriental' correspond to 'Orientale'. it would be called as 'Oriental Sea'.--Yuan.C.Lee 10:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

This page should be a redirect to the Japanese Sea. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all other meanings are not used in English. As a term for the Japanese Sea it is however used sometimes in the English language. Please remember, I don't want to move the article Japanese Sea or change it in another way! -- iGEL (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)