Talk:Dancheong

Uncited Info
Please remember everything put in an article must be verified by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:NOR. If you cannot find sources, then the info you insert will most likely be removed. Tommi1986 talk! 01:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021
Please add " ", thank you. --125.230.92.119 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This article is about Korean architecture, nothing to do with Chinese painting, this was the reason the page was protected. Tommi1986 let's talk! 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Misunderstood the template!! Will add!! Sorry Tommi1986 let's talk! 11:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tommi1986 let's talk! 13:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

About "Dancheong" and "Danqing"
In Chinese characters, both "Danqing" and "Dancheong" are "丹青". By the way, "靑" is a variant of "青". --111.251.77.210 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, just a quick reply. I think that what is happening is here (at least on this wikipedia page) is that editors want make this page dancheong distinctive from the Chinese danqing, and make the page very specific to Korean dancheong and its relation to Korean architecture painting. Both Korean and Chinese users are using the same characters (丹青 or 丹靑) and it seems that it is roughly the same thing if we are only talking about decorative painting for architecture (and/or possibly tomb murals). I think that this page is not appropriate to describe Chinese 丹青 as referring to Chinese painting in general. I believe that Japan also have their own version of dancheong (used in interior architecture), but I am unsure if they would also write it as 丹青. Anyway, these days there have been a lot of vandalism and disruptive editing and people have been discourteous to each other. My opinion on that is that if there is info about danqing (i.e. used in architecture) being equivalent to Korean dancheong (i.e. used in architecture) but with distinctive characteristics, then those info should be merged into one this page while keeping subsections for all three variant (Chinese, Korean, and Japanese). However, this wikipedia page should not refer to ancient Chinese painting in the broad term. If people are still fighting over it and want to keep it specific to Korean variant, then it might be better to make a page specific to Chinese danqing (for architecture). If there is any mistakes re:my explanation above or if more things need to be clarified or be discussed, please be courteous. Thank you. AE Aklys Erida (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)