Talk:Gwon Yul

General
Information on Kwon Yul's strategies and tactics would help this text. As it is, there is no explanation of how he engaged the enemy, or how he won his battles. 155.84.57.253 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added information on Kwon's strategy and tactics in the sections 'Battle of Ichi', 'Siege of Doksan', and 'Battle of Haengju'.Hkwon (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the section on the battle of Haengju to a separate article. I believe it makes for two cleaner articles. Bathrobe 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename
Someone please rename this article back to Kwon Yul as that is the most widely used spelling. Taeguk Warrior 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Naming conventions (Korean), the current title would seem to be correct. Unless you can show that the "Kwon" spelling is not only commoner but genuinely established in English use, we should probably stick to the standardized use of the Revised Romanization. -- Visviva 13:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Visviva is wrong. The romanization of Korean family name "권" as "Gwon" is neither consistent with Naming conventions (Korean) nor established in English use. According to Naming conventions (Korean) and McCune-Reischauer romanization, the Korean family name "권" should be romanized as "Kwon", not "Gwon", just like the family name '김' is romanized as "Kim", not "Gim". As an evidence of establlished usage in English use, Wikipedia's article for Korean family name "권" is "Kwon", not "Gwon", and all nine biographic articles of people with family name Kwon are all titled "Kwon", not "Gwon".Hkwon (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg
Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Kwon Yul. states that Revised Romanisation should be used only iIf there is no nameholder preference and no established English spelling". Five sources have been provided that use "Kwon Yul", and none have been provided to indicate that this is not an established spelling. Aervanath (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwon Yul → Kwon Yul &mdash; Relisting once more. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Naming conventions (Korean) and McCune-Reischauer romanization, the Korean family name "권" should be romanized as "Kwon", not "Gwon", just like the family name '김' is romanized as "Kim", not "Gim"; As an evidence of established English usage, Wikipedia's article for Korean family name "권" is "Kwon", not "Gwon", and all nine biographic articles of people with family name Kwon are all titled "Kwon", not "Gwon". (Hkwon) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Naming conventions (Korean) says (in part) that, "If there is no nameholder preference and no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names..."  Since the subject appears to have had no contemporaneous English coverage, this rule would apply.  The other Gwon/Kwon's at the Kwon article are modern figures who presumably had their names rendered contemporaneously in English sources.  (And as an aside, the McCune-Reischauer romanization form is Kwŏn, not Kwon.  Kwon is "passport ad hoc spelling" and not correct according to any major formal system.)  —   AjaxSmack   03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my misunderstanding of McCune-Reischauer romanization of Korean vowel "ㅝ". However, I still argue that the Korean family name "권" should be romanized as "Kwon" for the following reasons. First, it is the preference of vast majority of nameholders, to my knowledge as a Kwon myself. Second, it is an established English spelling, not mere a "passport ad hoc spelling". As shown above, in Wikipedia's article for Korean family name "권" as well as all nine biographic articles of people with the family name, except for this article "Gwon Yul", the names are romanized as "Kwon". Also, here are some published contemporary English sources on Kwon Yul that romanized the name as "Kwon Yul".

Jaques, T. (2007, p.425). Dictionary of battles and sieges: F-O. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Niderost, E. (2002, p.47). The miracle at Myongnyang. Osprey Millitary Journal, 4(1), 44-50. Whitling, M. (2002, p.452). Imperial Chinese military history: 8000 BC - 1912 AD. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Turnbull, S. & Reynolds, W. (2002, p.46). Siege weapons of the Far East (2): AD 960 - 1644. Westminster, MD: Osprey Publishing. Nilsen, R. (1997, p.79). Moon handbooks: South Korea (2nd Ed.). Berkeley, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. (Hkwon) 03:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I checked three of the references you mentioned, and I trust your word about the others. Based on them, there seems to be an established English spelling for the name. Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Switch to neutral since Romanization of Korean names is something I don't know anything about. Jafeluv (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Revised Romanization has existed for less than a decade so it's natural that many sources would not use it. There is no reason why this article is different from thousands of other Korean topics that use RR for their titles.  To reject the RR spelling here would be to repudiate WP:Naming conventions (Korean) which is fine but that should be done wholesale at WT:Naming conventions (Korean), not piecemeal, article by article.  (Also, cf. the pinyin vs. Wade-Giles usage rules at  WP:Naming conventions [Chinese].)  I have posted a link to this discussion at WT:Naming conventions (Korean) to elicit other comments.  —   AjaxSmack   23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To  AjaxSmack   " First, if "thousands of other Korean topics" that use Revised Romanization of Korean for their titles", which I doubt very much (did you count them?), how come 9 out of 10 wikipedia articles with family name '권' romanize the name not as 'Gwon' but as 'Kwon'? Isn't it an evidence of an established English spelling? Did you find more reliable published sources that romanize '권율' as 'Gwon Yul" than the ones that romanize the name as 'Kwon Yul' like I found? I could not find any source with the romanization 'Gwon Yul'. Second, the RR article specifies that "the Revised Romanization is not expected to be adopted as the official romanization of Korean family names". Third, according to the RR article, the consonant letter 'ㄱ' can be romanized as either 'g' or 'k'. Therefore, the romanization 'Kwon Yul' is correct whether you follow the RR rules or not, as far as my knowledge and wikipedia romanization rules (Hkwon) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To get an idea for usage of RR at Wikipedia, check this list at Category:Korean generals to which this article belongs. The names are nearly all in RR except for the exceptions prescribed at WP:Naming conventions (Korean).  As for the other names listed at the Kwon surname article, those are all living people except for Gwon Yul and presumably their names were codified in passports, etc., so the WP:Naming conventions (Korean) wouldn't apply to them anyway ("In principle, personal names should follow the new system, but individuals are free to choose their own spellings.").   You note that, according to the RR article, the consonant letter 'ㄱ' can be romanized as either "g" or "k".  This is true but not simultaneously.  Read the article carefully; it is romanized as "g" as a syllable initial and as "k" as a syllable final or before another consonant.  Once again, if you dispute the usage of RR at Wikipedia, fine.  But discuss the policy as a whole and don't try to conduct piecemeal changes such as this.  —   AjaxSmack   02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To  AjaxSmack   " First, according to the Revised Romanization of Korean Website uploaded in July 2000 and maintained by Korean Ministry of Culture and Tourism,  the names of people, firms, and organizations are allowed to be romanized as established English usage. I already showed above the romanization of '권' as 'Kwon' is an established English usage in reliable published sources. Therefore, the romanization of '권' as 'Kwon' is correct in RR rules. Second, you say the articles on Kwons on Wikipedia have 'presumably' have names codified in passports. Do you have any evidence to support your claim? After the checking of Wikipedia articles and according to my personal research, I found at least 5 of Kwons out of 10 on Wikipedia, Gwon Yul, Kwon Sang-woo, Kwon Young-ghil, Kwon Yang-sook, and Kwon Ji Yong, have no known record of travelling abroad and be issued a passport. I am not making any piecemeal changes to anything, but arguing toward more established Korean romanization.Hkwon (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (Hkwon) • contribs) 07:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change of quality scale to 'B'
According to WikiProject Biography/Assessment, I changed the article's quality scale from 'start' to 'B'. The reasons include: 1)the article and its talk page show, at least several, reliable published sources; and 2) there is no need for any substantial cleanup. Hkwon (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WikiProject Korea, for the same reason above, changed the quality scale. Hkwon (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Change of WikiProject Korea/Assessment imprtance scale from ?? to mid
A change according to WikiProject Korea/Assessment rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) —  Newslinger   talk   00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwon Ryul → Gwon Yul – Gwon Ryul is not the proper transliteration of 권율 Gwon Ryul would be spelt 권률 and none of the references on this article have this spelling. No primary sources list Gwon Yul's name as Gwon Ryul and, indeed, I could find no source whatsoever that uses Gwon Ryul. So, as per the guidlines laid out by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) which uses the Revised Romanization system of transliteration, the Revised Romanization of 권율 would be Gwon Yul. Sanctusune (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary section is badly written
The entire summary seems to be a terrible translation. It is completely nonsensical. 2600:4041:5E17:B600:8954:EB5F:ADAD:E26C (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)