![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changed from “ Crucian carp (Carassius carassius)” to “Goldfish (Carassius auratus)” per dictionary and wiktionary, neither of which is a reliable source. Please change back to “Crucian carp” if you think that's better. Wikipeditor 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A'Fu seems to suggest the Chinese word for “red carp” is a homophone of “prosperity”. Is this about 鮒 fù and 福 fú? If there are hints that the whole fish shape thing is a prosperity symbol based on homophony, perhaps we should add it to the article. Wikipeditor 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Concerning a change by
User:Enni84:
As far as I understand, 鮒魚 is merely etymological. The word is not treated as a normal hanja word, so 鮒魚 shouldn't appear in the box as an alternative way of writing it – if it were, Korean hanja dictionaries would list 붕 bung as a pronunciation of 鮒. That's why I hid 鮒 and 魚 beneath piped links. Wikipeditor 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Should the title be hyphenated as "Bung-eo-ppang"? It would be easy for non-Korean readers to confuse "Bung-eo" and "Bun-geo" without the hyphen. Kiersta 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bungeoppang is Japanese Taiyaki.
This is a cake very popular in Japan. Bungeoppang came from Japan. It knows all the Korean suppliers. However, it does not write one line either. There is a person to delete immediately when I write the history of this Bungeoppang. Do a correct, objective description. This is a Japanese cake.
This article about Bungeoppang shows no source. It is only a sentence written in personal impression. It is because nothing has a document about Bungeoppang. And Koreans do not write the history about Bungeoppang for some reason. Why is it? It tells the history of Bungeoppang. The reason is because the history of Bungeoppang is new. As for the reason, this is Japanese taiyaki. And many Koreans know it. If there is a document about the history of Bungeoppang in Korea, it will be written on this article. On the other hand, there are a lot of book about taiyaki and documents in Japan. There are researchers, too. The history of taiyaki is very clear. There is a person deleting a sentence that Bungeoppang is Japanese taiyaki. However, he does not write it about the history of Bungeoppang.
Origin of taiyaki is clearly known; created by Naniwaya, Tokyo, in 1909. "to say that it is not called bungeoppang, but called taiyaki is utter silliness." < This argument itself is silly. we are not talking about the term "bungeoppang". "In Japan, bungeoppang is known as taiyaki." < This expression is wrong. bungeoppang is not known in Japan.
Earlier, you mentioned Naniwaya and a date. Now we are getting somewhere. If you can find a verifiable source, add it and reference it, you have something more informative. Otherwise, we cannot add information as the edits you are proposing are Japanese POV. Can you provide realiable and verifiable information while mantaining a neutral point of view? -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Japanese wikipedia has an article "taiyaki", which says "There is bungeobbang in Korea, which is a copy of taiyaki", and korea wikipedia has an article "bungeobbang", which says "it was imported from Japanese taiyaki". why does English wiki need both page? I can help merging both page if you hope. compare the both page, they are almost identical,,, well,,,because it descreibes the same thing. Making the "bungeobbang" page is just like making "JIDO-SHA(自動車)" page though it already exists the "CAR" page. (wildcop)
In Korea, taiyaki is known as bungeobbang. In Japan, bungeobbang is known as taiyaki each one deserves its own article. End of story. The only person with this problem is you, no one else. Bungeobbang was probably introduced to Korea by Japan (no one doubts this at all, but the burden of verifiable proof lies on you) Long ago, someone proposed merging. Nobody wanted to merge them. And describing the differences between A and B IS a waste of time if done on a single page when A can have a page, and B can have a page. I indeed created this page for my satisfaction; my satisfaction is to contribute my knowledge of facts and information to the repository of human knowledge called WIkipedia. What's your satisfaction? To diminish knowledge and bend articles with a Japanese point-of-view? Just curious. -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that Taiyaki and Bungeoppang are the same kind of cakes. Taiyaki is called Bungeoppang in Korean. Is this a mistake? -- Azukimonaka 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've eaten many Gyeranppang, but I've never seen one that look like scallop or any kind of seashell. They usually look like this. http://cafe.naver.com/15668981.cafe?iframe_url=/ArticleRead.nhn%3Farticleid=339319 Unless someone can bring a picture of Gyeranppang that looks like seashell, I'll change the description of it. Stevefis 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
despite some users complaining about the use of this word, I see it as NPOV, and merely a more formal way of writing, that is highly suitable for an encyclopedia. I think it should stay, if you don't agree, lets talk about it here, talk is better than reverting. thanks Sennen goroshi 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that, but I agree with the use of the word as it was a factual appellation for Japan in the early to mid 20th century--Japan was an empire-holding country and it was called Imperial Japan. -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
they do seem pretty much identical. are there any differences significant enough to support two articles? Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ CHR52: Hi, CHR52! Please stop adding photos of taiyaki. It has its own article, which is wikilinked in bungeo-ppang article. -- Phonet ( talk) 09:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Reading this article and its various sources, I’m wondering what exactly distinguishes bungeo-ppang from taiyaki to the degree it needs its own article. They seem like different names for the same thing. Past explanations on this article’s talk page seem to basically argue that one is Korean, the other Japanese, and that’s that. In which case it makes no sense to need two articles. It would be like having two separate articles for, say, french fries and pommes frites. Not looking to step on anybody’s toes here, not trying to somehow advocate for one country against another (not sure how merging food articles would even accomplish this). Before I go about formally proposing a merger between these two articles, I simply want to sound out the sentiments here first and be educated a little further on this matter in good faith. Thanks in advance. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changed from “ Crucian carp (Carassius carassius)” to “Goldfish (Carassius auratus)” per dictionary and wiktionary, neither of which is a reliable source. Please change back to “Crucian carp” if you think that's better. Wikipeditor 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A'Fu seems to suggest the Chinese word for “red carp” is a homophone of “prosperity”. Is this about 鮒 fù and 福 fú? If there are hints that the whole fish shape thing is a prosperity symbol based on homophony, perhaps we should add it to the article. Wikipeditor 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Concerning a change by
User:Enni84:
As far as I understand, 鮒魚 is merely etymological. The word is not treated as a normal hanja word, so 鮒魚 shouldn't appear in the box as an alternative way of writing it – if it were, Korean hanja dictionaries would list 붕 bung as a pronunciation of 鮒. That's why I hid 鮒 and 魚 beneath piped links. Wikipeditor 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Should the title be hyphenated as "Bung-eo-ppang"? It would be easy for non-Korean readers to confuse "Bung-eo" and "Bun-geo" without the hyphen. Kiersta 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bungeoppang is Japanese Taiyaki.
This is a cake very popular in Japan. Bungeoppang came from Japan. It knows all the Korean suppliers. However, it does not write one line either. There is a person to delete immediately when I write the history of this Bungeoppang. Do a correct, objective description. This is a Japanese cake.
This article about Bungeoppang shows no source. It is only a sentence written in personal impression. It is because nothing has a document about Bungeoppang. And Koreans do not write the history about Bungeoppang for some reason. Why is it? It tells the history of Bungeoppang. The reason is because the history of Bungeoppang is new. As for the reason, this is Japanese taiyaki. And many Koreans know it. If there is a document about the history of Bungeoppang in Korea, it will be written on this article. On the other hand, there are a lot of book about taiyaki and documents in Japan. There are researchers, too. The history of taiyaki is very clear. There is a person deleting a sentence that Bungeoppang is Japanese taiyaki. However, he does not write it about the history of Bungeoppang.
Origin of taiyaki is clearly known; created by Naniwaya, Tokyo, in 1909. "to say that it is not called bungeoppang, but called taiyaki is utter silliness." < This argument itself is silly. we are not talking about the term "bungeoppang". "In Japan, bungeoppang is known as taiyaki." < This expression is wrong. bungeoppang is not known in Japan.
Earlier, you mentioned Naniwaya and a date. Now we are getting somewhere. If you can find a verifiable source, add it and reference it, you have something more informative. Otherwise, we cannot add information as the edits you are proposing are Japanese POV. Can you provide realiable and verifiable information while mantaining a neutral point of view? -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Japanese wikipedia has an article "taiyaki", which says "There is bungeobbang in Korea, which is a copy of taiyaki", and korea wikipedia has an article "bungeobbang", which says "it was imported from Japanese taiyaki". why does English wiki need both page? I can help merging both page if you hope. compare the both page, they are almost identical,,, well,,,because it descreibes the same thing. Making the "bungeobbang" page is just like making "JIDO-SHA(自動車)" page though it already exists the "CAR" page. (wildcop)
In Korea, taiyaki is known as bungeobbang. In Japan, bungeobbang is known as taiyaki each one deserves its own article. End of story. The only person with this problem is you, no one else. Bungeobbang was probably introduced to Korea by Japan (no one doubts this at all, but the burden of verifiable proof lies on you) Long ago, someone proposed merging. Nobody wanted to merge them. And describing the differences between A and B IS a waste of time if done on a single page when A can have a page, and B can have a page. I indeed created this page for my satisfaction; my satisfaction is to contribute my knowledge of facts and information to the repository of human knowledge called WIkipedia. What's your satisfaction? To diminish knowledge and bend articles with a Japanese point-of-view? Just curious. -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that Taiyaki and Bungeoppang are the same kind of cakes. Taiyaki is called Bungeoppang in Korean. Is this a mistake? -- Azukimonaka 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've eaten many Gyeranppang, but I've never seen one that look like scallop or any kind of seashell. They usually look like this. http://cafe.naver.com/15668981.cafe?iframe_url=/ArticleRead.nhn%3Farticleid=339319 Unless someone can bring a picture of Gyeranppang that looks like seashell, I'll change the description of it. Stevefis 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
despite some users complaining about the use of this word, I see it as NPOV, and merely a more formal way of writing, that is highly suitable for an encyclopedia. I think it should stay, if you don't agree, lets talk about it here, talk is better than reverting. thanks Sennen goroshi 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that, but I agree with the use of the word as it was a factual appellation for Japan in the early to mid 20th century--Japan was an empire-holding country and it was called Imperial Japan. -- MerkurIX (이야기하세요!) (투고) 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
they do seem pretty much identical. are there any differences significant enough to support two articles? Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ CHR52: Hi, CHR52! Please stop adding photos of taiyaki. It has its own article, which is wikilinked in bungeo-ppang article. -- Phonet ( talk) 09:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Reading this article and its various sources, I’m wondering what exactly distinguishes bungeo-ppang from taiyaki to the degree it needs its own article. They seem like different names for the same thing. Past explanations on this article’s talk page seem to basically argue that one is Korean, the other Japanese, and that’s that. In which case it makes no sense to need two articles. It would be like having two separate articles for, say, french fries and pommes frites. Not looking to step on anybody’s toes here, not trying to somehow advocate for one country against another (not sure how merging food articles would even accomplish this). Before I go about formally proposing a merger between these two articles, I simply want to sound out the sentiments here first and be educated a little further on this matter in good faith. Thanks in advance. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)