Jump to content

Talk:Port Hamilton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LactoseTI (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 24 September 2006 (Why port hamilton?: thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why port hamilton?

It's not disputed island and Korean name for the island is Komundo. There is no reason for Hamilton to be used. In english speaking world, Komundo is used. I don't see any wide spread or established use of Hamilton [1]. It's just nonsense to use Hamilton. Bring me more convincing evidences why ths island should be called Hamilton. Ginnre 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

korea "port hamilton" -wikipedia on google English pages have 135, korea "Komundo" has 64. What's more, the komundo pages are generally less official; see [[2]] where they use "Port Hamilton" as the main title--even on The Korean Times. In any case, this is not an uncontroversial move. If you want to move it, therefore, please follow the appropriate procedure (outlined here).
What's more, this area shows up in history quite often--it's importance is chiefly historical. That name appears so frequently in comparison with your proposed one that it should be left there. Komdori 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article page according to Wikiepdia naming convention (Korean): Islands - Read about it here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean). Deiaemeth 07:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALso, there seems to be multiple British places named Port Hamilton, and the name Port Hamilton does not apply to Komundo in modern times.. [3] [4] [5] Deiaemeth 07:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about this area, but why not follow your own advice in the edit log and propose a move? You may request a move. I have heard of Port Hamilton in many history books of the area; if it's used more in English, it should be here per the Wikipedia general naming convention. —LactoseTIT 11:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geomundo: 10,200 results http://www.google.com/search?q=Geomundo+Korea+-Wikipedia

Port Hamilton: 924 results http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Port+Hamilton%22+Korea+-Wikipedia

Try going to the last pages--when you try, you realize it is only 152 (not 10,200) vs 366 (not 924). What's more, these include many Korean pages. Search for English only pages, and you get 74 vs. 131. As I mentioned, looking at the authoritative sources, even the Korean ones, rather than informal blogs, etc. show a much higher use of Port Hamilton. Komdori 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like what the others said, theres no need to use "Port Hamilton" when it has a Korean name and is a Korean island. Korea is not in a "territorial dispute" with the UK or the US either. Also, it says in the article that it has been turned over to South Korea. I agree that this article should be moved to Komundo. Good friend100 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that Port Hamilton is the most common name in English, it would seem best to use that name here. See Wikipedia:Use common names, which generally takes precedence over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Islands... and the latter has a specific exception for cases such as this (strange that Deaiemeth didn't notice that). That said, I haven't evaluated the arguments pro and con here; for the present, I have no opinion of my own.  :-) The potential ambiguity of "Port Hamilton" does seem like a powerful argument in favor of the Korean name (which should be romanized as "Geomundo" per the Korean naming conventions, since the islands are in South Korea). Cheers, -- Visviva 11:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the ambiguity--is there more than one Port Hamilton in Korea? It seems even less issues of ambiguity would arise than the state of Washington vs. Washington, D.C.. If there are several Port Hamilton's in Korea, the situation might be different. —LactoseTIT 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]