Thread history

Fragment of a discussion from Support
Viewing a history listing
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Time User Activity Comment
No results

I'm not "attacking"' anyone like you are doing indirectly. And I prefectly read your message (several times). As well I've NEVER stated that Korean Wikipedia rejected the hanja usage (I said exactly the opposite!). Note a part of my reply above was unexpectedly truncated in one sentence "the fir ..." is where this occured just before I added the comment about the South Korean gov statement for its own works in its own adminsitration.

The initial request above (by Ellif) was incorrectly argumented. And it's a fact that Korean is more diverse than what you may think. You are just argumenting about some users preferences and these preferences are not a policy even in the supported projects (notably for Wikimedia where there's a freedom of choice, just like there's a freedom of speech). I do not want to raise any editing wars that the Korean communities must handle using their normal community decisions, local to each wiki (which does not apply here because this Translatewiki.net is for many other projects as well, not just those of Wikimedia: there are tons of wikis translated with Translatewiki.net that do not belong to Wikimedia, even if they use MediaWiki, and each of them can apply their own local policy).

I mention the South Korean government because it is on topic with your statement and the links you provided which have very limited scope (and not a policy decision) inside a talk page Korean Wikipedia where there are also other valid arguments.

As well you cited the intent of some Koreans campaigning against the inclusion of Hanja in Korean domain names (which is a separate, unrelated issue, and this opinion is not approved by ICANN, which cannot act on this, because the policy for names in the two Korean TLDs is decided by these Korean governments, and does not apply to gTLD which each have their own policy, asd long as they match with the IDNA framework, which allows for all scripts standardized in Unicode/ISO/IED 10646 and with relevant policies in RFCs and the Unicode standard itself, approved by many governments, and almost all web standardization bodies, including IANA for BCP 47 which is the most important standard, even more important than ISO 639 which still does not regulate at all the scripts or orthographies to be used).

Verdy p (talk)19:50, 21 October 2020