Talk:Nokdu-muk

Mung bean starch jelly elsewhere
Chinese people have told me that mung bean starch jelly (probably the same or a very similar food as Nokdumuk and/or Hwangpomuk) is also used in Chinese cuisine. If somebody can find out which variety of bean starch jelly is used in Chinese (and possibly South East Asian) cuisine, I suggest moving the respective article to White mung bean starch jelly, Yellow mung bean starch jelly or some such. Wikipeditor 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, like the fine line between dangmyeon and Chinese glass noodles... Badagnani 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed from infobox without discussion
Alternate hanja spelling: 淸泡묵. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's owership and disruptive behaviors again.
That is the case again. Badagnani who does not stick to sources when editing articles, again falsely blames me of "blanking info". I only fix wrong info as adding a better image. Nokdumuk has two types by color, cheongpomuk is only one variety of nokdumuk. Besides, the hanja of cheongpomuk is move to the content. So that is not "blanked" unlike the false accusation. There is no need to discuss for "fixing wrong info". (how absurd). That means the user wants to keep false info. I think the user needs to stop the bullying behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems clear now. Where was the term "blanking" used? Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed from infobox without discussion, well read your own accusation.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Liangfen should not be merged to Nokdumuk, as proposed at Liangfen, as there are many varieties of liangfen, in many different provinces of China (both north and south), made from mung beans as well as peas, chick peas, or potatoes. A thorough Google and Google Books search shows this multiplicity of varities of Chinese liangfen and thus these two items are different and merit their own articles, as for example jiaozi and mandu do.


 * Presenting actual sources would be better for your stance. Besides, You have been wikistalking GraYoshi2x.--Caspian blue 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's technically only one "official" type of liang fen, which is made from mung beans. Anything else should be labeled as such (e.g. jidou liang fen), since they're most likely just local specialties.  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources, which indicate many different types of liangfen, made from at least four or five different types of starch and either cold or stir-fried. China is so huge there are bound to be a lot of regional variations (as with Chinese opera). It's like saying that because Chinese opera originated with kunqu and Beijing opera that those are the "real" Chinese opera and all others are offshoots. The Yunnan dish does have "chickpea" in its name but many of the other regional variants don't have a modifier; they're just called "liangpi." Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why I can't find any passage from the book to confirm It is most popular in northern China, including Beijing and Gansu, but may also be found in Sichuan.--Caspian blue 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another edit war resumes. Badagnani, remind of 3RR.--Caspian blue 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources are numerous and added. There are a great many more, in both English and Chinese. Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly desist edit warring and making nonsense. Fact: you're currently edit warring just one step ahead of 3RR.--Caspian blue 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone, and please use this page only for the purpose of improving this article. Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly stop your nonsense with the attack and don't edit war. I pointed out your incorrect usage of the book source, that is one of purpose of using talk page. If edit war is going on, alarming editors is another function of talk page usages.--Caspian blue 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment; you had asked where sources could be found and I replied that a great many of them existed, and had been added. What was it that you wanted to address to improve the article after that? Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not show me anything, so I, myself checked your sources. Besides, you distorted my comments over and over with the false accusations. You know you continue the tendentious edit war, even if you do not violate 3RR, you will be soon in trouble. I already warned GraYoshi2x about edit warring, so please bear in mind. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. The article is getting better and better through our collegial collaboration, and thank you very much for moderating your tone; that makes things work so much better. The links are very long and complex so I simply added them into the article itself. They document each variety of liangfen as it appears in each regional cuisine of China. Badagnani (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Liangfen be merged into this article?

 * No merge, see the bottom. --Caspian blue 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been in a dispute whether or not Liangfen should be merged into Nokdumuk and retitled into something more universal. Badagnani has only called these edits "no consensus" and "incorrect" (which are invalid reasons in the first place as policy allows merging with little consensus in the first place and borders on civility issues), but I'm posting this to resolve the dispute in a better fashion. &mdash;GraYoshi2x (via posting script) 04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nokdumuk and Liangfen are entirely separate dishes and should not be merged. The reason: there are many varieties of liangfen, in many different provinces of China (both northern and southern), made from mung beans as well as peas, chick peas, or potatoes, and served either cold, as a salad, or stir-fried. On the other hand, Korean Nokdumuk is only made from mung beans. Thorough Google and Google Books searches show this multiplicity of varities of Chinese liangfen and thus these two items are different and merit their own articles, as for example jiaozi and mandu do. Certainly both should not be lumped together in an article entitled Mung bean jelly, for the above reasons, just as jiaozi and mandu should not be lumped into a single article entitled East Asian wheat pastry-wrapped dumpling. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No merge As I said earlier to the two editors, a key of whether we merge or keep separately the two articles in question is a presentation of "reliable sources". However, there is no evidence provided by GraYoshi2x that the two dishes are "identical". Of course the two may look similar to each other but articles should be based on "reliable sources", not what an editor think of. That own analysis just can lead "original research" that should be avoided. I also can not find the two dishes are the same one. The nokdumuk mention on the liangfen should be moved to the "See also" section if Badagnani can not find "Nokdumuk is similar to lianfen". And do not continue such edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Mung bean starch jelly could be used as a disambiguation page. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I remove the merge tag, since GraYoshi2x has not provided any verifiable evidences for his/her claim other than his/her assertion for over 2 and half month, so enough time went by to remove the tag.--Caspian blue 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nokdu-muk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204185301/http://www.clickkorea.org/Food/foodView.asp?idx=20&page=1&menubar=4 to http://www.clickkorea.org/Food/foodView.asp?idx=20&page=1&menubar=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)