Revision as of 05:54, 1 February 2006 editAppleby (talk | contribs)7,234 edits →but why are you reverting cited accurate info?← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:37, 1 February 2006 edit undoEndroit (talk | contribs)11,124 edits →but why are you reverting cited accurate info?Next edit → | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:then delete the citation links, but don't delete accurate '''content''' supportable by citations to reputable publications. thanks. ] 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | :then delete the citation links, but don't delete accurate '''content''' supportable by citations to reputable publications. thanks. ] 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
::It's way too long and redundant. There's no need for the details. The other version was shorter and to the point. ... And it seemed like you were trying to insert your particular POV, on how one was more important than the others (according to your POV).--] 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:37, 1 February 2006
Ed Poor,
- East Sea is a local name both in South Korea and Vietnam. It is not an internationally accepted geographic name.
- Geographic explanation for the Sea of Japan is obviously needless for this page, but your explanation is inaccurate. The sea is bounded by the Japanese archipelago, Sakhalin and the Asian Continent, not only the Korean peninsula.
--Nanshu 00:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- East Sea is an internationally accepted geographic name. See: Talk:South_Korea#Notice. Kokiri 12:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I want to have a discussion at a single page, so go to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan. --Nanshu 00:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have changed this into a redirect to the Sea of Japan. This, because that's the only use of East Sea on Misplaced Pages so far. I have checked for the other mentioned East Seas, but failed to get results. Sure, places such as Ostsee when translated word by word into English give East Sea – rather than Baltic Sea – but that's not an internationally used term. This is the case for the East Sea/Sea of Japan. Kokiri 16:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still in no mood for getting involved in this issue, but I have to do before Kinori makes the situation worse.
- The Vietnamese certainly use "East Sea" for "Bien Dong". If you can't find an example, it is only because the Vietnamese are inactive in Misplaced Pages. Here is an official example of using "East Sea" by them: http://www.mofa.gov.vn/English/Vietnam/geograph.htm --Nanshu 00:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I changed it back to disambiguation. The Vietnamese exclusively use East Sea for the South China Sea. DHN 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Dead Sea, from the Holy Bible
In the Holy Bible, look up Ezekiel 47:18. Depending on the translation, Dead Sea is called East Sea or Eastern Sea . This is the last call. If nobody objects within the next 24 hours, I will add Dead Sea to both the East Sea and Eastern Sea disambiguation pages.--Endroit 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Revert to 2002?
i've reverted to the version originally created by 23:12, August 14, 2002 Stephen Gilbert, since there has been no "consensus" since then. Appleby 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is thoroughly disingenuous. The very next edit, in early 2003, added the Vietnamese usage, and it had always been a disambiguation page since then until your unilateral moves. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
it is obvious that it has not always been a disambiguation page, it has been a redirect back & forth. i'm the one who created a new page called East Sea (disambiguation) so that both versions can coexist. there has never been a "consensus" although i'm pretty sure i've provided the proper citations & wikipedia policies & wikipedia article examples. but we will revert to the original version until consensus/mediation/arbitration. Appleby 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Primary meaning
Merriam-Webster Online believes that the primary meaning of East Sea is East China Sea. So there. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- actually it has no entry for "East Sea", it just searches for "east" & "sea" separately, & Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation specifically says this should not be done, as disambiguation pages are not search indexes. same thing endroit tried. Appleby 04:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
but why are you reverting cited accurate info?
Appleby asked "but why are you reverting cited accurate info?" in his last edit.
Here's my answer: The disambiguation page is not a place to list details and citations like Appleby did, hence the reversions.--Endroit 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- then delete the citation links, but don't delete accurate content supportable by citations to reputable publications. thanks. Appleby 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's way too long and redundant. There's no need for the details. The other version was shorter and to the point. ... And it seemed like you were trying to insert your particular POV, on how one was more important than the others (according to your POV).--Endroit 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)