User talk:grapesurgeon

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 6.

Subsequent question

From my previous talk here

I fully agree with the concern of speculative translation. However, for cases where the suffix (산 / san) is consistently and conventionally translated as Mount in English, it would improve clarity to display this. To achieve consistency, I think infobox Korean auto (which you're the co-author) should be automatically configured to display translation if the Hangul value is equal to the value from a list or something similar. The set of major Korean mountains is likely within a maintainable range to be easily created or maintained by experienced editors. ~2025-32317-07 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical. I don't know if it'd be all that helpful, cause it'd just be like "Mount Paektu", which is fairly obvious after reading a few words of the lead anyway. Also most people on Korean mountain pages likely know "san" means "mountain". Also technical implementation detail; which romanization do we choose to show in the literal translation, and how do we know for sure the article is about a mountain and not like something else that ends in "san"? Takes a bit of thought and imo it's not worth it overall grapesurgeon (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could match it verbatim from a predefined Hangul list instead of displaying every "san" suffix to Mount. Also this translation can extend beyond mountain, I suggest we do it for palaces as well, sources sometimes make the name redundant as in the case of "Gyeongbokgung Palace", and I would hope for the infobox to explain that its translation is "Gyeongbok Palace". ~2025-32317-07 (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Programming that in is unnecessarily inelegant; would be writing in a list of every thing we want to provide literal translation for. I'm still skeptical of this idea. grapesurgeon (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could consider speeding up the process of adding it to the guidelines, as you considered previously here, so we can regulate what people choose to add based on those guidelines. ~2025-32317-07 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how best to regulate this, if at all. In scenarios where I'm not sure I try to avoid adding regulation; adds more reading for others grapesurgeon (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to remove

Hi there, I would like to request to you to use AWB to remove the with |image_upright = 1.15 parameter on all Korean drama related articles. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's a part of my script at present. I ran that script on all Korean drama articles recently actually. Are you seeing a lot of articles with it? grapesurgeon (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's nice then everything is fine. Thanks! 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Korean Barnstar

For your thorough contributions to articles on Sejong the Great and Hangul. Thank you for your work! Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 🙂 and thank you as well for your work! Important coverage that's often not even available in English academic works. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reviewing MMTG (YouTube series). The author removed Fanpov template - can you check if the issue is resolved? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but still FANPOV language; maybe not enough to be worthy of template grapesurgeon (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double checking _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kkongkkong

On 30 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kkongkkong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a viral stray cat was, years later, found and adopted by the same journalist who had inadvertently turned her into a meme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kkongkkong. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kkongkkong), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,666 views (888.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 15:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Absolutiva 03:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is the first time ive received this notice over 58,000 edits 😭 not a big BLP editor grapesurgeon (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 § Restaurants by cuisine

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 § Restaurants by cuisine on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]