Template talk:ko-hanja/old
Polysyllabic words
I guess this is only for single Han characters' entries, even if the template by itself does not place entries in such a category. I've substed it at 雪濃湯 – is that ok? Is there a more appropriate template to use in that case?
It would be great if editors could copy the format from a perfect model entry for a hangeul sequence, ideally with multiple meanings depending on the underlying hanja. Dustsucker 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- ko-hanja is only for the single characters, and only as characters. For words, use
{{ko-pos}}. And we never subst these templates! (makes a mess, and then are impossible to change, one of the changes may be to add a category)
Template makes bad link based on pronunciation, not meaning
Ok, I don't really know how to use a template such as this, so I'm not about to edit it. But, when visiting the page for the character 恩 I found the template was used with this result: Hanja 恩 (hangeul 은, revised eun, McCune-Reischauer ŭn, Yale un)
Note that the pronunciation guide 은 actually provides a link to an article with a definition of the topic particle 은, which is coincidentally pronounced the same, but completely unrelated to the meaning of 恩 (grace). Why should this template provide a link based on pronunciation but not meaning? Wouldn't it be better not to link at all, than link to an inappropriate article? Zadignose 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- We tend to link anything that may be useful, not just based on meaning. But more to the point, the entry at 은 is not complete (yet), it should also have a section (we've been using "Syllable") that lists all of the hanja with the same reading. So by following that link you can (will be able to) find the homophones. Robert Ullmann 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Modifications to the template
I did a few modifications to the template to allow in more information about the eumhun; the combination of both the pronounciation and name of the hanja characters. I added fields for the different romanizations of the name and changed to layout to something similar to {{ja-kanji}}. I also made it backward compatible with the previous version so that it will keep the same look as before if the following fields are blank: eumhun (already there), ehrv (added), ehmr (added), ehy (added). I know I didn't dicuss those changes but it's nothing that can't be reverted at any time. Luccas 14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Luccas, good to see you again. Thanks for taking an interest here. I guess my personal preference would be to limit non-canonical romanizations (i.e. everything but standard RR) of the eumhun to the word(s) of the hun, which should of course be linked (and entries created where they do not exist). I don't really see a value in having this information in the hanja entries themselves. -- Visviva 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it ought to be just linked; but also including the romanization; it is just a click away. Else it is very confusing as to what applies to this hanja itself. (also keep in mind that most users aren't experts in Korean, eumhun doesn't mean anything to them in the first place ;-) More importantly, this template generates an "inflection" line; it can't generate multiple lines with headings, since it is supposed to be followed by a # definition line. (Just as
{{ja-kanji}}generates the inflection line, it is{{ja-readings}}that is used in the Readings section.) So the format doesn't work ... ;-( Robert Ullmann 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's nice to get some feedback here. Visviva may be right on this, full romanization of the hun may not be needed in the hanja entries, especially if it's linked to the word (if the entry exist). Without wanting to sound hostile about it, I'm no expert in kanji so kanji grade doesn't mean anything to me, along with alot of other information there. It doesn't mean the eumhun shouldn't be there along with the rest of the advance linguistic information present simply because it's only useful to a handful of people. The full eumhun links back to the Korean definition of the character. And as it was mention in the previous comment by Zadignose that 恩 was linking back to the topic particle 은 and to nothing related to the meaning of 恩 (grace), it's because the hun for 恩 is 은혜, Korean for grace, and it wasn't there at the time. I understand what you mean by the way this generate multiple lines and headings before the #{{defn}}. I hope a way can be found to solve this, or at least improve on the layout of the previous version. Luccas 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to update this template in the directions Visvisa and Robert Ulmann. This should all display as a single line, and it seems unnecessarily cluttered to show multiple romanizations here. How about having the eumhun information display like this?
- Rod (A. Smith) 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not sure I like that because it reverses the normal order of eumhun information, but the reversed order also seems odd:
- Does that reversed order seem to imply the wrong pronunciation? Rod (A. Smith) 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have some opinion for modifying the structure of this template. Some hanja can have multiple and independent Eumhun sets, but using this template makes difficult to seperate each pronunciation-meaning set. For example, 樂 has three different pronunciation-meaning sets, and 龜 has two(in korean, 구(gu)/귀(gui) both refer to turtle, and 균 refers to "tocrack"). This template can't make these sets separable. It will be much better if all parameters become multiple(ex> parameter eumhun be replicated as eumhun2, eumhun3 etc. and all other parameters did samely) for solving this problem. --Mintz0223 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mintz0223 What about multiple "Etymology" sections? —suzukaze (t・c) 07:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mintz0223 Also, I have created
{{ko-hanja/new}}(Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ko-hanja/new). Your feedback is welcome. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)- @Suzukaze-c: We already have
{{ko-new/hj}}(without the docs, I don't know the difference) created by Frank. Good to see that "eumhun" is being worked on, long overdue. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)- @Atitarev: You misunderstand.
{{ko-hanja/new}}is a "new" version of{{ko-hanja}}(c.f. the RFC for{{ko-hanja}}), not another template for generating hanja entries :) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)- I like. Should the eum and hun parts be separated or clarified though? The default notation is actually hun-eum, although it is called eumhun... Also, I don't think
{{ko-hanja/new|즐기다|즐길}}is a good idea. The hun can be quite complex and would be better manually decomposed, e.g. 涴: 물 굽이쳐 흐를 완 Wyang (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC) - OK, thanks. Can we remove "mr" and "y" parameters from the new release? McCune-Reischauer and Yale romanisations belong to hangeul entries and are 99% automated. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: I have made it so that wikilinks can be added in the first parameter. I didn't realize that they could be more complex than
<verb form|noun> <pronunciation>... I decided on{{ko-hanja|즐기다|즐길|락}}because I thought that{{ko-hanja|]|락}}didn't seem aesthetic, and that the code itself could easily resolve the need for the "extra" link brackets, considering how often verbs are used to gloss hanja. - As for eum-hun: IDK 🤷 I guess it's just a name that happens to sound strange because of Korean sentence structure.
- @Atitarev: Currently, there is no support for manual romanization at all in
{{ko-hanja/new}}. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) - (Aesthetics is also the reason why I used a blank parameter to separate "traditional" (?) readings from modern SK readings; originally there was a
>in there. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: I have made it so that wikilinks can be added in the first parameter. I didn't realize that they could be more complex than
- I like. Should the eum and hun parts be separated or clarified though? The default notation is actually hun-eum, although it is called eumhun... Also, I don't think
- @Atitarev: You misunderstand.
- @Suzukaze-c: We already have
- @Mintz0223 Also, I have created
Category
A category should be added to this template, ] or something more specific. Thanks! --MaEr 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Small change request
I don’t seem to be able to edit, so could someone who can please make this change? The hyphens in “McCune-Reischauer” should be replaced with dashes, like this: “McCune–Reischauer”. It’s joining of the two names, so en-dash should be used here. Cherkash (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
倫 and ko-hanja/new
- Discussion moved from Talk:倫.
@Suzukaze-c: Hi. I don't understand this new format. The basic view as in this revision makes more sense - hanja - romaja - hangeul: 倫 • (ryun) (hangeul 륜) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- The old template was ugly when eumhun was added (cf. Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#Template:ko-hanja), so I tried to come up with a solution. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: The most essential part is the hangeul readings of the hanja. Pls consider rewriting so that hangeul and eumhun (and their transliterated) are separated, maybe on a separate line or with the word.
- Even something like this is better: 倫 • (hangeul 륜 (ryun)), (eumhun 인륜 (illyun))
- There could be multiple hangeul and eumhun, of course. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it might be confusing which part is the reading, but the usual presentation seems to be "인륜 륜". (ko.wiktionary doesn't do this, but they're not using similar formatting practices in the first place.) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Even if the order is the same, we need labelling and separation. It's not a very good design, sorry. Some improvement would be good. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I had thought about alternatives (you should be able to see the history of User:Suzukaze-c/p/ko as an admin; IIRC it is relevant).
- Naver uses
人 (사람 인), which IMO is nice and concise. - The Korean and Chinese Wiktionaries all vertically present the hun before the eum, while the Japanese Wiktionary (and English Wiktionary
{{ko-hanja}}) present eum on one line, and eumhun on the next line. This latter solution is my least favorite, since it duplicates the eum and really doesn't fit with the aesthetic of other en.Wiktionary entries. - Perhaps the eum could be highlighted using color? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: Yes, colours or labels. Hangeul can stay unmarked. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Even if the order is the same, we need labelling and separation. It's not a very good design, sorry. Some improvement would be good. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it might be confusing which part is the reading, but the usual presentation seems to be "인륜 륜". (ko.wiktionary doesn't do this, but they're not using similar formatting practices in the first place.) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev 
Done —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: Thanks! Pls add a short note about the positioning/colouring in the documentation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Previous discussion: Template talk:ko-hanja.
This template is a total mess:
- It's inconsistent with Wiktionary formatting conventions: our headword-line templates are supposed to generate one line, not four.
The word "Eumhun" is just thrown in there in a place where it can only be described as "wrong". (The fourth line, labeled "name", is the eumhun, but the "Eumhun" appears on the second line.)(Edited to add: Actually, this comment wasn't really right. The eumhun is both the meaning and the pronunciation taken together. So the presentation is not really wrong, merely incredibly confusing. 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC))- It generates stray parentheses in some cases, and probably stray commas in others.
I suspect that some (much?) of the template's content should simply be removed.
—RuakhTALK 05:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to see some bold editing in this case. Bold editing not recommended for widely used templates in general, but in this case I think it's appropriate. Maybe use
{{ko-hanja/new}}to make changes then move it on top of ko-hanja (that is, deleting the current version of ko-hanja and replacing it with ko-hanja/new). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - Closed. The old template no longer exists. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)