Talk:Crown Princess Gonghoe

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Crown Princess Gonghoe of Joseon was a descendant of Confucius, King Seonjo considered a necromancy for her funeral, as her remains went missing during the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592?
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by George6VI (talk). Self-nominated at 08:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crown Princess Gonghoe; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Almost all DYK conditions are met (article was expanded from 351 words to 1614 recently). QPQ does not appear needed at this seems to be the creator's first DYK nom. Main if still minor issue: one unreferenced sentence marked. Very minor grammar issues including in the ALT0 (I think was should we went?). Text does not need to be copyedited for DYK, but if we keep the ALT0 I think it needs be c/e-ed, but I am not a native English speaker myself so I defer to someone else for final check here. I'd also suggest making an ALT1 with the term necromancy to significantly increse hook clicktroughs, although that sentence needs copyediting in the article proper as it is not clear (see my edit summary there). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done - At least I fixed that very "unreferenced" one, please check if what still can be changed. - George6VI (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • GTG now. I still think you are missing on many views by not using the necromancy-themed hook, but it's not required to promote this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Sure, I don't see why not. - George6VI (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@George6VI and Piotrus: The hook is 203 characters but it must be 200 or less. It could also use a bit of fixing as it is a bit hard to follow and might be using an incorrect preposition. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed the hook. - George6VI (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Errr. It was still grammatically incorrect - I've added the missing word 'went'. I did not count the characters, however. Easiest words to cut would be "of Korea". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus and George6VI: Thanks for the fixes. 196 characters now. Hook may need a semicolon before "as" but I think the prep gnomes will check it out and if needed it will be added. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Second thought it still reads funny, maybe I can get some last minute help proof reading the hook from Theleekycauldron? Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Lightburst, Probably the use of "a necromancy"? "A necromancy ritual" might be better? Mind you, I am just thinking through the prism of fantasy novels. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus and George6VI: I do not think theleekycauldron is coming to the rescue so I will promote this hook and any hook changes can happen in the prep set.

Necromance

"At the time of the King's return in 1593, the Crown Princess' coffin was missing; he considered a necromance to resume the funeral, which was objected by the officials."

This needs better explanation, especially since none of the cited sources are in English. Firstly, "necromance" is not in any major dictionary. Shouldn't it be necromancy or necromancer? Secondly, what exactly does it mean here? Was the intention to communicate with the Princess's spirit in order to locate her body? I presume it's not to re-animate corpses, but that should be clarified as the latter meaning is quite commonly known from fantasy games. Also, the term today implies a connection to black or evil magic. Was this also the case then, hence the officials' objection? This should also be clarified either way, as the reader can't be presumed to know how Joseon Korea viewed necromancy, whichever form of it is being referred to. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:George6VI, in case you missed this. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Sure, let me explain. English is not my first language but Chinese, and sometimes I don't know how to describe a precise concept properly, especially like Sillok, written in Classical Chinese. The relevant part in that Sillok page, it's basically like this:

“ The King said, "I don't want to mention the disaser happened to the Priness again. In ancient times, people might summon souls of the dead by ritual for funerals (if the body being absent, no body would be buried in the tomb, and a ritual would do). At the time the official had yet do it, and I consider to do so, but I don't know how. Should I just let it be, or summon the soul for the funeral? ..." Some officials said, "Such funearl is inappropriate." ... "... if the case wouldn't be too far from the moral, then it may be acceptable." The King said, "it seems that it is indeed inappropriate, and if there exists remaining clothes, it may work. And what are those empty tomb you said earlier?"... ”

The original paragraph is like that, and what word would you describe this? And the original text 招魂 is about the ritual, but there is no English page about it in Wikipedia. - George6VI (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I would write it as, "he considered a ritual to summon her soul for the funeral, which was objected by the officials as inappropriate." It provides a basic description quite directly matching the translated passage, which more clearly explains the idea to the reader. I don't think linking to the Necromancy article is necessary, as it's a very broad overview that doesn't really provide greater understanding than the description. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The article makes for a fascinating read but I am disappointed that Piotrus and Lightburst overlooked its grammar, style, and orthography issues. I do not think it was quite ready for the Main Page. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna I am not a native speaker and I am used to less than perfect texts on Wikipedia. AFAIK some minor problems with grammar etc. are allowed in article body for DYKs. That said, I did note problems with the term necromancy and like during my review. I don't see grammar, style and ortography mentioned in Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines#Presentability or elsewhere in that guideline? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am surprised to learn that the guideline contains no such requirement. I have asked here whether this omission is deliberate. Surtsicna (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply there. I am surprised too, actually. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)