Talk:Samul nori

Recent unexplained and unsourced edits

1. The sources that I've seen all transliterate the term in line with the title: "samul nori". Changing it with no explanation – not even an edit summary – isn't acceptable. What grounds do you have for "Samullori" (especially when followed by a commented out objection to that usage)?
2. Why do you think that a numbered list (why numbered?) is better than prose?
3. Why, once the term has been introduced, use italics for it?

Please talk about this before reverting again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On 1.: If we write the term without a space, it would be -ll- both by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism's and by McCune's and Reischauer's rules. Likewise, if we use a space, it would be -l n- in both systems (please see their WP articles for references), and probably -l-l- in McC-Rsr if we used a hyphen (by analogy with their example 연산군 Yŏnsan-gun, as opposed to Yŏnsan-kun), so the question boils down to the question of whether to use a space, a hyphen, or neither:

• The MCT 2000 rules say nothing about word division. If you want a rule for the English Wikipedia, I suggest we use a space wherever South Korean 띄어쓰기 dictionaries allow one for hangeul orthography.
  (If it is of any use here, the English RR promulgation booklet writes Hunminjeongeum without a space, and the 국립국어원's 표준국어대사전 does not use the arc symbol (⌒; used in words that should normally be written with a space in hangeul orthography) for 사물놀이. Then again, most four-syllable terms can, should or must be written with a space by South Korean 띄어쓰기 rules as far as I recall.)
• McCune and Reischauer have a few paragraphs on "a correct division into words" as well as an example sentence ("Han'gŭl undongŭn Yŏnsan-gun choë irŭrŏ k'ŭn aegunŭl tanghayŏtta."). They prescribe "a division into units roughly comparable to those in European sentences […] if the Romanization is to be intelligible to the average Occidental", which must be of little help to anybody, as European languages such as English and German differ greatly in their use of spaces and hyphens. McCune and Reischauer "believe that on the whole [the hyphen] should be used as sparingly as possible".
  To conclude, I interpret their text as favouring a space in our case, so I'd change my earlier samullori to samul nori in the box's McC-Rsr field.

On 2.: To me (and Badagnani, it seems), lists are easier on the eye for chains of similar pieces of text such as four times [Korean name of Korean instrument] + [explanation in familiar terms]. If the "four objects" are not traditionally listed in that order, a bulleted list would be better.

On 3., please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms: If you consider samul nori to be a loan word or a term that has common use in English, feel free to not use italics – living outside the Anglosphere makes decisions like these all the more difficult for me. Either way, let's be consistent and not sometimes use italics and sometimes regular for the same term. Wikipeditor 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Good English style is not to use lists like that when proper prose is available (as it is here).
2. As it's used in the titles of albums and musical groups, I don't think that italics are necessary. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I fail to understand how a list would be bad, apparently there is at least one user who prefers a normal paragraph – have it your way. Same goes for italics, although I'm eager to learn what album and band names have to do with this.

Be my guest and feel free to fully revert up to three times instead of only "correcting" what you consider wrong. I'll leave it to you to fix that – see, Badagnani even gave you a hint. Wikipeditor 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "samul nori" is used in English-language articles and on album covers for the style of music and for band, etc. I don't think that it counts as a foreign word or phrase that needs to be italicised. (Similarly, terms like "samba" and "rembetika" aren't normally italicised. The point about lists (especially numbered lists) is that one should write in prose unless there's good reason not to (for example, a very long list). Note that I reverted twice, not three, much less more than three times. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The edits were well explained and good. Restoring. Badagnani 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You've just reverted blindly, including reversing a lot of copy-editing; given that you seem unable to read, much less understand, the points that I made above, but are here only to champion another editor, could you leave the article alone until you have something constructive to say or do? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit history speaks for itself regarding my constructive additions to this article, as well as articles on several dozen other traditional Korean musical instruments. Your own repeated reversion of properly explained Korean romanization conventions, apparently executed simply to "teach another editor a lesson" about using edit summaries, was ill-conceived and a very poor way to get your point across. Please examine your own behavior (which does come across as hot-headed in this regard) before threatening other editors, particularly those who are clearly hard working and knowledgeable regarding the subject at hand. Badagnani 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And another blind revert of the same material. If this continues, I shall take steps to have you blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The list is more easily readable. Badagnani 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The change from "z" to "s" is unnecessary, and the threats to block editors reverting this change are simply outrageous and unreasonable. We usually go with whichever spelling is more appropriate for the culture being discussed. In an article about fish and chips or the changing of the guard, I'd support British spellings. For Korea, which has a longstanding relationship with the United States, U.S. spelling conventions seem more appropriate. Badagnani 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. That it's more readable is a matter of opinion. There's no consensus for changing the format to a list; two out of three isn't consensus. If you think that it's this important, place the article at WP:RFC.
2. The move to "ise" was a mistake — I thought that the article was originally in British English. Looking at it again, though, "symbolise" (or "-ize") is wrong — "represent" is the correct term, as used in what follows. (U.S. English isn't, however, justified by Korea's relationship with the U.S.; read the MoS.)
3. Your edits included much more than that, as you know full well. Your fake outrage won't fool anyone who looks at the article's history. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've now violated WP:3RR on this article.

The rule applies to the implementation of more than three reverts in one 24-hour period, as you know--which I have not done. Please do not continue to threaten other editors; your own editing practices (including multiple, mistaken reverts) and threats to other editors are indefensible. Please don't try to turn these mistakes into a war of sorts, by turning a defense into an offense. That's just not what we should be here to do. We are here to increase knowledge, including on subjects as esoteric as this East Asian percussive genre. I hope you feel the same way. Badagnani 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour, which has slowly moved from reverting everything that I do, regardless of content, to reverting a large chunk of what I do, to reverting part of what I do on the mistaken claim that it goes against consensus, to the reverting of part of what I do in the mistaken belief that (some of it) is justified by a majority opinion of two to one on the Talk page — all of this is unacceptable. I've asked for others to look at the article, and to comment on your actions. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please present your suggestions here. Several of your former edits, as you know (the romanization issue being a quite significant one), have proven to have been mistakes. I believe we are down to the simple matter of whether the four percussion instruments should be listed in a list or in a paragraph--a quite small matter. Two out of three active editors on this article agreed that the list was superior. The change from American to British spelling of the word "symbolizes" is an issue of similarly miniscule importance. Why the necessity to blow this out of proportion? I ask again that you gracefully submit to the opinion of the majority on these very small issues, and build this article rather than engaging in aggressive and threatening campaigns. Badagnani 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given proper reasons for my edits at every stage, unlike you and Wikipeditor. I've edited in accordance with WP:CITE, unlike you and Wikipeditor. I have reverted only those edits with which I disagreed, unlike you. The "symbolize" issue is irrelevant (though your insistence on it depite its being merely a case of elegant variation is perplexing).

Finally, change – in cases of disagreement – requires consensus; there is no such consensus here. I'm asking other editors to give their opinions, which is the correct procedure, but you object to that; why?

If you want to improve the article instead of arguing about the list, do so; no-one's stopping you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you removed Category:Korean words and phrases (“Words and concepts in the English language of Korean language origin”) on purpose? Wikipeditor 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Anyone here from this article's entry at WP:RFC is welcome; please comment below.

SamulNori links

At this point, the article is about the genre and the actual original ensemble (in fact, it would have to be, as the term was coined by Kim Duk Soo in reference to his ensemble). Thus SamulNori links are quite relevant. Badagnani 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Instrumental section

The section at the bottom titled "Instrumental" just lists some things and should be either deleted or expanded by its creator or someone who probably knows his intention. AnUnnamedUser 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)