Template:Did you know nominations/Htou-tjyen

Htou-tjyen
Created/expanded by ZX95 (talk). Self nom at 16:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the ancient Htou-tjyen playing cards of Korea were only half an inch wide?


 * Symbol question.svg Article title not in any recognizable romanization, per MOS:KO. Could this article actually about Hwatu (화투)?Prburley (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources indicate that they're definitely distinct from Hwatu; "htou-tjyen" are much older and have an entirely different deck composition and design. The romanization issue is trickier- the most frequently cited description of the cards in English is very old, and many not have been using any kind of consistent romanization at all, but "htou tjyen" is used even in the 2004 book. Will the title be an obstacle to DYK? I'm not sure how capable I am of clearing it up without consulting a native speaker (or something). ZX95 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs a correct title. Already asked a native speaker. No luck. I posted this at WikiProject Korea. This also needs some additional references, which will be easier once the title is established. Prburley (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Issue discussed with someone knowledgeable on the topic at WikiProject Korea. The name in Korean as well as the "proper" romanization have been added to the lede, but since the latter is almost never used in English-language works about the topic, I have kept the original title. ZX95 (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposed revised hook, with image:


 * ALT1: ... that the ancient Htou-tjyen playing cards (pictured) of Korea were only half an inch (1.27 cm) wide? Prburley (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg's long enough and new enough. The title thing is interesting. I can see that the article (and ko wiki) call it tujeon. I am presuming from the refs that English language sources are calling it Htou-tjyen. Do we know what the htou bit is? It is fine being under the name most commonly used in English, romanization rules don't over-rule that. I'm going AGF on the offline references and say this is good to go. Secretlondon (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Don't think this can run with the blue tag on top of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it's a mild suggestion, which I placed there, rather than an indication of a problem, I have no qualms taking it off. Removed. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 22:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The other point made at WT:DYK is that the word "ancient" is not adequately supported by the article text, or its sources. The only definitive date was eighteenth century, too recent for that appellation. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to the playing cards being "ancient", the article provides no real discussion of when they were invented or during what period they were in use. It says that they may have "originated from the similarly-shaped symbolic bamboo "arrows" used for divination in sixth-century Korea", but that does not mean that they date back to the 6th century, and in any case the article concedes that there is no real evidence for this origin.  The adjective "ancient" assumes that they had been in use for centuries before they were first described in a Western source during the late 19th century, but that is an assumption that we cannot make on Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use "1.27cm" in the hook. "Half an inch" is an approximation, not a precise measurement, and shouldn't be converted with such precision. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, all. Just had a look at the paper source, and though I could have sworn that it confirmed they were actually more "ancient" than 1895, on second reading it seems like all that was either a discussion of Culin's hypothesis, or just vague implication. Also, with regards to the spelling: it's strange-looking, but "Htou-tjyen" is used almost universally among English-language sources; hopefully the inclusion of the RR will help convey the pronunciation more clearly to readers. In response to the comment directly below me (sorry, I'm trying not to disrupt the threading), I definitely agree that it could be misleading, since the cm measurement is so precise. In light of all this, I've come up with an alternate tag that hopefully resolves these issues:


 * ALT2: ... that the traditional Htou-tjyen playing cards (pictured) of Korea were about half an inch (or one and a third centimeters) wide?
 * Cheers, &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png This appears to have gotten stalled, perhaps due to the ungainly ALT2 hook, so I've proposed a slight variation on it. If we must include a metric measurement, does the below work (getting "wide" earlier)? Half an inch is closer to one and a quarter cm than one and a third, but since it's approximate, I though "a bit over 1 cm" was close enough. I hope a reviewer can settle this and get us moving again. Thanks.
 * ALT2a: ... that the traditional Htou-tjyen playing cards (pictured) of Korea were about half an inch wide (a bit over 1 cm)? —BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg hook ALT2a is OK covered by reference and good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)