This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There has been considerable debate over the use of titles at the beginning of the article like this, especially not bolded and italicised. It's surely even less appropriate, however, when the person concerned is – as the article makes clear – only a pretender, not in office. That makes its use a political statement, which Wikipedia shouldn't be making. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry as I did such act. I didn't know well the rule here but he was already succeeded the 29th head of Korean imperial house, and he is obvious pretender in Korea. I think he must be called the His Imperial Highness. It must mark definitely. User:Sissel111
Does Prince Gu have any sons or daughters who can become his heirs? – Kaihsu 12:45, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
I should explain that I placed the alternative names in the summary because, when I was looking for details of his life and (more importantly) trying to confirm his death, I had no luck — until I realised that our article is one the very few that call him by this name. Most Internet sources seem to use Yih Ku, or other variants. Given that I'd been confused, i thought that other readers would be too, so I brought the alternative Romanisations into greater prominence. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just removed another in a series of copyvio images up-loaded by Sissel111 ( talk · contribs). I've also removed the following paragraph, which I'm completely unable to understand:
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know who this is? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Per the naming conventions for (cough) monarchs, shouldn't this be at Yi Gu? -- Visviva 03:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the pretended title 황태손 be included here? It is verifiable and surely relevant to an article about someone whose lone notable attribute was his claim to the Joseon line. The content was removed by an anon, but I have restored it for now. -- Visviva 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Page moved to Yi Gu. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Gu, Prince Imperial Hoeun → Yi Ku – Relisting. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)He is "Yi Ku" to the Associated Press, to The Telegraph, to the Los Angeles Times, to the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Korea, and to Britannica. JoongAng Ilbo calls him "Yi Gu", as does Chosun Ilbo. Yonhap says "Lee Ku". I don't see anyone else calling him a "prince imperial hoeun". "Yi Ku" is already a redirect to this page. Kauffner ( talk) 07:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with either "Yi Ku" or "Yi Gu". But if anyone cares, it's 9 post-1990 Google Book results for "Yi Ku", compared to 5 for "Yi Gu". In the news archive, it's 9 for "Yi Ku," 8 for "Yi Gu". While I have to wonder how this subject got into Britannica, he is there and he has an entry entitled "Yi Ku". So that should decide it. "Yi Ku" is the traditional McCune–Reischauer system. MCT spelling is "I Gu". "Yi Gu" is some kind of compromise spelling. There is a WP:Naming_conventions_(Korean) about this stuff. Kauffner ( talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Flimsy rationale not related to WP:AT (as is urged in many places). No support and no consensus, and already relisted once in the hope of getting it. We move on. Please also note that these three moves could and should have been raised and discussed as one multi move. Andrewa ( talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There has been considerable debate over the use of titles at the beginning of the article like this, especially not bolded and italicised. It's surely even less appropriate, however, when the person concerned is – as the article makes clear – only a pretender, not in office. That makes its use a political statement, which Wikipedia shouldn't be making. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry as I did such act. I didn't know well the rule here but he was already succeeded the 29th head of Korean imperial house, and he is obvious pretender in Korea. I think he must be called the His Imperial Highness. It must mark definitely. User:Sissel111
Does Prince Gu have any sons or daughters who can become his heirs? – Kaihsu 12:45, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
I should explain that I placed the alternative names in the summary because, when I was looking for details of his life and (more importantly) trying to confirm his death, I had no luck — until I realised that our article is one the very few that call him by this name. Most Internet sources seem to use Yih Ku, or other variants. Given that I'd been confused, i thought that other readers would be too, so I brought the alternative Romanisations into greater prominence. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just removed another in a series of copyvio images up-loaded by Sissel111 ( talk · contribs). I've also removed the following paragraph, which I'm completely unable to understand:
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know who this is? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Per the naming conventions for (cough) monarchs, shouldn't this be at Yi Gu? -- Visviva 03:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the pretended title 황태손 be included here? It is verifiable and surely relevant to an article about someone whose lone notable attribute was his claim to the Joseon line. The content was removed by an anon, but I have restored it for now. -- Visviva 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Page moved to Yi Gu. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Gu, Prince Imperial Hoeun → Yi Ku – Relisting. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)He is "Yi Ku" to the Associated Press, to The Telegraph, to the Los Angeles Times, to the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Korea, and to Britannica. JoongAng Ilbo calls him "Yi Gu", as does Chosun Ilbo. Yonhap says "Lee Ku". I don't see anyone else calling him a "prince imperial hoeun". "Yi Ku" is already a redirect to this page. Kauffner ( talk) 07:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with either "Yi Ku" or "Yi Gu". But if anyone cares, it's 9 post-1990 Google Book results for "Yi Ku", compared to 5 for "Yi Gu". In the news archive, it's 9 for "Yi Ku," 8 for "Yi Gu". While I have to wonder how this subject got into Britannica, he is there and he has an entry entitled "Yi Ku". So that should decide it. "Yi Ku" is the traditional McCune–Reischauer system. MCT spelling is "I Gu". "Yi Gu" is some kind of compromise spelling. There is a WP:Naming_conventions_(Korean) about this stuff. Kauffner ( talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Flimsy rationale not related to WP:AT (as is urged in many places). No support and no consensus, and already relisted once in the hope of getting it. We move on. Please also note that these three moves could and should have been raised and discussed as one multi move. Andrewa ( talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)