Talk:Wongaksa Pagoda

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

since there seems to be no established english name, & Wongaksajisipcheungseoktap looks like kittens playing on the keyboard, how about Wongaksa Pagoda? Appleby 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I came across a reference in a Korean art book today, the copy right which was 1962 I believe, where it was referred to as Wongak-sa Pagoda so I guess I'm leaning towards that or Wongaksa Pagoda or Wonggak-sa Tap? Tortfeasor 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

although we need more comments, the current unopposed proposal for temple naming would result in "Wongaksa". Appleby 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

So Wongaksa Tap or Wongaksa Pagoda. I would prefer the latter but there is precedent with Seokgatap and Dabotap. Although, those are two very famous pagodas. Tortfeasor 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

i'd vote for Wongaksa Pagoda myself. just instinctively, 3 syllables feel like one word that should be transliterated, but 4 syllables feel too long to treat as one word, if that makes any sense. Appleby 06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

sounds good. do we need other people for a consensus on this insignificant issue? Tortfeasor 06:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add topic