User talk:Brett Cox

Brett Cox, you are invited to the Teahouse!

 * Thanks for the invitation! 🍵 --Brett (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention for Wikipedia articles
Unless there is a compelling reason for doing otherwise, Wikipedia policy is that the form of a name used as an article title should be that which is most commonly used and recognised in English. My searches indicate that the moves you have made of articles on Korean topics have not been in line with this policy: for example, a Google search for "Kim Deuk-sin" produced 2,700 results, whereas "Gim Deuksin" produced 6, including the Wikipedia article which you renamed. Please don't move articles to titles that you prefer unless there are policy-based reasons for doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

With your advice, I'll google the romanizations before renaming pages. I've just googled various romanizations of Gim Deuksin (김득신), and learned that some non-governmental museums and publications don't necessarily follow the official romanization system. Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art romanizes the name into "Gim Deuk-sin" and Gansong Art Museum romanizes it into "Kim Deuk-sin" on their exhibition pages. Many books and older materials use the McCune–Reischauer "Kim Tŭksin" or "Kim Tŭk-sin". Thanks for the advice! 😊 --Brett (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have been renaming the articles on Korean people of pre-modern ages, according to the Revised Romanization of Korean. It is the official romanization system that South Korean government publications and national museums use. Many articles seemed to have been arbitrarily romanized by the page creator, without rules and without references. (For example, Seong Huian has no reason to be romanized as Seong Hui-ahn with the Anglicized third syllable, but the English Wikipedia article named Seong Hui-ahn seemed to have produced some offspring on the internet.) I avoided renaming the articles that has reliable English-language references that contains the alternative/status-quo romanization.

Recipes are not appropriate in articles
See WP:NOTRECIPE. But you can do it at The Wikibooks' open-content cookbook anyone can edit. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! To me, the section doesn't look like a set of instructions, but a description on how the dish is usually made. It is also written in a very simple way without giving measurements and cooking time, etc. WP:NOTRECIPE also states "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." However, as the paragraph seemed like a recipe to you, which means it may also seem like a recipe to some other people in the future, I've just changed some sentences into a bit more descriptive ones. 🥄 --Brett (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. It's better now. Doug Weller  talk 15:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoppang
I think we may have been editing Hoppang at the same time. I think my version might have been a bit more polished and reverted to it--but no offense intended. The article could certainly be expanded. Barte (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for letting me know and no problem! I've just changed a few more things in addition to your revision. 🍞 --Brett (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good changes. I think your "Etymology" is the better subhead. Barte (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Gomul) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Gomul, Brett Cox!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for taking the time and trouble to create this - it's appreciated. It's now been reviewed and has had some improvement tags added. If you have the time, could you look it over and see if you can help address any of the issues raised in the tags? Thanks again for your hard work."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Boleyn! Thanks for reviewing the page and also letting me know. The improvement tag was added by myself, as I'm looking for some help from other users. 🍮 --Brett (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't realise that! I'll look over it myself and leave tag if I think it needs someone with more knowledge in this area. Thanks for responding, Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fish cake
Hey i have noticed you have made some contributions to Fishcake page a while ago. I wanted to inform you that instead of calling it fishcake (which sounds low quality and cheap food), it is just better to call it as 'Amook'. If you type 어묵 it will show up how 어묵 industry in Korea transformed into more modern style food product. I hope to hear back from you in near future 13:15, June 28 2017

Pak Chesoon
Hello. According to Revised Romanization of Korean (RRK), "박제순" is "Bak Je-sun". But "박제순" is the one of people of Joseon Dynasty period, and "Pak Chesoon" is official name of "박제순", (s:Page:The New Far East (1906).djvu/342), like Syngman Rhee. So, I was undo your unofficial naming edits in that article, because of aside from official name you could write in Infobox Korean name about other romanization system (like Revised Romanization and McCune–Reischauer). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Gomyeong listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gomyeong. Since you had some involvement with the Gomyeong redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Replacement of pita with khubz
Hi Brett Cox, I noticed that you've been replacing the word "pita", and its link, with "khubz", in a number of articles. I also noticed the changes to the pita article, implying that pita is an exclusively Greek food; this is not supported by reliable sources. I have reverted that change, if you wish to dispute that, please do so on the article's talk page.

I've also reverted the change of "pita" to "khubz" in the shawarma article, as it directly contradicts the given source (Marks 2010). I wanted to let you know that I plan to revert the changes you've made in the other articles as well. Despite a fair amount of misinformation on the pita article talk page, and the existence of two separate articles, they are more or less the same thing. Or at least, there are a range of flatbreads that are more or less the same, for which the English word is usually "pita", and which have other names in other languages. For example, the Oxford Companion to Food defines the word "pita/pitta" as: "the Israeli and western name for the Arab BREAD called khubzʿadi (‘ordinary bread') or names meaning ‘Arab, Egyptian, Syrian bread' or kumaj (a Turkish loanword properly meaning a bread cooked in ashes), baked in a brick bread oven." Please note that changing "pita" to "khubz" may also be controversial in terms of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and may be affected by the arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions of WP:A/I/PIA. Please let me know if you have any questions, you can reply to me below, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fyi, I updated the pita article to mention the name "arabic bread" (khubz arabi), along with several citations noting that "pita" is the common English word for it (though not for all types of khubz, which is just the Arabic word for bread). I finished reverting the changes of "pita" and the links to "khubz" in several articles. I went ahead and reverted the ones in the China-related articles, since at least one of the sources mentioned "pita", and none "khubz". However, I'm not sure that "pita" is necessarily the right word in those cases. I'll leave that up to you... --IamNotU (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)