Talk:Goryeo

RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is about what information should be included in the infobox. The current status label and the proposed status label are reproduced below for the convenience of the discussion.

Current: Tributary state[1][2][3][4] of Later Tang, Later Jin, Later Han, Later Zhou,[5] Song,[6] Liao,[7][8][9] Jin,[10][11] the Mongol Empire,[12][13] Yuan,[14] and Ming[15][16]

Proposed: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1]

New Proposal: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1] Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)

23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese dynasties are categorized as former empires. See Category:Former empires. So the style of the current version is correct per Template:Infobox former country#Status as tributary state is categorized Category:States by power status along with client state, protectorate, puppet state, and vassal state. See also Template:Infobox former country/Categories and vassal state. Vassal state and tributary state are interchangeable. Oda Mari (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Goryeo is a historical Kingdom of Korea, please stop Sinocentrism. Sinocentrism is not what Wikipedia for. Oneslin (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For the Japanese editor, please read carefully Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects. Sinocentrism is giving unbalanced aspects to this article. It is a violation of Wiki principle.Oneslin (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you continue to ignore the most pertinent issue at hand - the fact that the current status label violates guidelines set forth by both Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX. Please review the several violations that I listed in my previous statements. Oneslin does have a point as well, the infobox contains too much information about Imperial China, most of which is not pertinent to the structure of Goryeo.

Also, there appears to be a misconception regarding the Template:Infobox former country/Categories source. If you read carefully, you'll see that the source's purpose is to list which values fit the into the default "status" and "empire" fields. The reason that the "status_text" field exists is to allow editors to create more specific status labels, such as "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". In other words, the source does not exclude other values, such as "Imperial Chinese tributary system" from being used. They just don't fit into the default format: "status(empire)". According to Template:Infobox former country#Status, there is nothing wrong with the proposed edit. BUjjsp (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed. An infobox is supposed to be concise. The current one is unreadable. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support neither proposed with modification - The current is organized illegibly and the proposed is oversimplified, and slightly incorrect. The current would be better if it were organized as it is on Ryukyu Kingdom; each entry having its own line and providing dates. The Mongol Empire (I'm not talking about the Yuan dynasty) shouldn't be considered part of the "Imperial Chinese tributary system".

@Oneslin: Oda Mari isn't pushing Sinocentrism. It doesn't matter that Goryeo was a "historical" Korean kingdom, the fact remains that it was a tributary of China for most of its existence.

EDIT: That user was indef blocked for "vandalism". It looks more like POV pushing.

@BUjjsp: "Too much information on Imperial China"; that's funny. I'm pretty sure that each dynasty is treated as a separate entity. And Mongolia isn't China, and shouldn't be labeled as such. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sturmgewehr88, I appreciate your concern regarding the article. However, if you read the reasons I listed above, inclusion of the dynasty names reveals nothing regarding the political structure of Goryeo or any of the tributary system members for that matter. Yes, they were separate entities, but in the interest of conciseness as well as the inclusion of only KEY INFORMATION relating to Goryeo, the relationship that Goryeo had with these dynasties can be summed up in a far more efficient manner, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". This label collectively includes the relationships between tributary system members and the various Chinese dynasties. Consequently, I see no reason to include the individual dynasty names when the relationship can be explained in a concise, single label.

As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty). However, the period between which the Mongol Empire's relationship with Goryeo was short-lived, before the Yuan Dynasty took its place (1259-1271). Despite this, in the interest of obtaining consensus, I am willing to include, "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)" as part of the infobox stats label. BUjjsp (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. So just to be sure, the new proposed status label is,

"Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system

Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)"

Please tell me if any editors involved have any digressions with this. BUjjsp (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed Chosen at random to answer RFC's. The current info box is a mess, it needs to be simplified. AlbinoFerret 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: and @AlbinoFerret:, please read Talk:Joseon#Classification of Joseon as a Tributary of China and Talk:Joseon#Discussion Regarding the Status Label of the Infobox first as the talk started there. I'll post what I have to say as soon as possible. Oda Mari (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to read Talk:Joseon#Discussion Regarding the Status Label of the Infobox, but I don't really see the point considering the points brought up on this page and that page are practically identical. The reason I moved the discussion here is because no one responded to my WP:3O on the Joseon page, likely because the discussion got way too long. You can also see that I brought up the same issue on the Ryukyu Kingdom page in the Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#Minor Edits in the Infobox section. BUjjsp (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed. Agree with Scolaire's comment. The current format is too complex, and unreadable. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not right that the description style should be changed just because the status section of this article looks a mess. See the status section of Ashikaga shogunate and Joseon. They are readable, but BUjjsp requested the same change at Talk:Joseon before this proposal. Goryeo was a tributary state of many countries and it is an exceptional case. The current proposal have two different style. If the style was changed, Ryukyu Kingdom would also have two different style of its status. The consistency of the style would be lost. IMHO, the issue here is not the readabily, but the matter of the consistency of the style/format. The change would affect a lot of articles. I'll ask for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries as the infobox is a part of the project. Oda Mari (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposed. The fact remains that this infobox is currently a mess and fails to meet the criteria set forth by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX, which every editor here except you has concurred with. This "style" argument that you keep bringing up is not cited anywhere in Wikipedia. It is your own personal, unsubstantiated opinion. And so what if the status labels in the other articles are changed? The same argument: "This style has been at EN:WP for years" that you bring up over and over again is irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia being a public encyclopedia is to constantly improve on its content where appropriate. BUjjsp (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as there is still dissent from one involved editor despite comments from other editors through the Rfc process, I move to end the Rfc and request formal mediation to resolve the issue at hand. If there is any digression with this, please comment below. BUjjsp (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how an RfC works. When you make a request for comments, you have to wait for the comments to come in. Then somebody closes it, there is a result, and that result is implemented. You don't just hop to the next process because things aren't happening fast enough for you. I put in a request for closure four days ago, on the basis that there had been no input for six days at that time. If you hadn't started playing around, it would in all probability have been closed by now. Because you tried to mark it "withdrawn", however, it has now been reopened. Just sit tight for a while, let more people comment if they wish, and if the discussion stops for several days again, you can make another request to close. You should not be moving to mediation until much further down the line. And you'd better hope that it doesn't come to that, because mediation takes a very long time indeed. And, by the way, I did not appreciate being named in your abortive request for mediation as a party to the dispute. I am not in a dispute with anybody. All I did was to !vote in this RfC, and do some housekeeping. Scolaire (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you and any other editors involved. The guidelines provided for 'requests for formal mediation' asked me to name any "editors who are involved". I never had to use the formal mediation process before, so I tried to follow the guidelines available to the best of my ability. My apologies again. BUjjsp (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll note that due to the backlog at ANRFC, it was unlikely this would have been closed before January 9th (30 days) anyways. RfCs are typically set to run for 30 days, and there are currently multiple discussions that are over 60 days waiting to be closed. If new comments seem to be lacking and you'd like to generate more discussion, you might consider listing the discussion on WP:CENT or posting a notice of the discussion to relevant WikiProjects and Village pumps. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support new proposal, with comma before "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes should be "short & straight to the point", which at the moment it's not so per above I have to support. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, infoboxes should be as concise as possible. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty)."

User:BUjjsp, is Liao dynasty Han Chinese? Or Jin dynasty (1115–1234)? Yuan dynasty? Neither are Later Tang, Later Jin (Five Dynasties) and Later Han (Five Dynasties). In other words, six out of the nine polities supposed covered by the 4-word label "Imperial Chinese tributary system", are in-fact non-Han-Chinese. This label is particularly problematic for the 2 centuries after 994, when Goryeo after the First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War started using Khitan Liao (and later, the Jurchen Jin) era names rather than the "Han Chinese" Song dynasty era names (though Goryeo used Song era names again between 1016 to 1022). In other words, for 220 years between 994 and 1224 Goryeo was making tributes to either the Khitans or the Jurchens rather than "Han Chinese". The current field is VERY MISLEADING. Either set it up like Ryukyu Kingdom, or delete the section altogether. Timmyshin (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The current label is not misleading at all. The dynasties you mentioned were not Han Chinese of course. However, these entities, like the Han Chinese dynasties, followed the model of the Imperial Chinese tributary system as a method of asserting their suzerainty over smaller states. If you were familiar with the definition of the Imperial Chinese tributary system, you'd know that being a 'Han Chinese' dynasty was not a prerequisite for assuming the role of power within the Imperial Chinese Tributary system. For example, the Manchurian Qing Dynasty was not a Han Chinese dynasty, yet indisputably, it continued the central role of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System until its demise in 1911. I hope that cleared up any misconceptions you may have previously held. BUjjsp (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, when the Mongols first conquered China, they didn't continue the tribute system. It wasn't until Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty that the tribute system resumed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP Edits

To the editor(s) who is/are repeatedly changing the article's content without explanation, please explain the reasoning behind your edits. Considering that the article is about Goryeo, there no reason to change the pre-existing map to one that focuses on the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which is being persistently added without explanation. Moreover, I see no reason to repeatedly remove information that was decided by consensus on this talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Flag issue

After a brief search on the subject matter, it is my understanding that File:Royal flag of Goryeo (Bong-gi).svg is most likely inappropriate for this article. Sources which cover this flag are very scarce, but they generally appear to suggest that this image, known as the phoenix flag (bong-gi), is a largely imaginative reconstruction of one of Goryeo's various ceremonial flags which is briefly mentioned in the Gaoli Tujing (aka Goryeo Dogyeong), a 12th century book on Goryeo written by a Northern Song scholar.
In this sense, I highly doubt the reconstructed flag is based on any surviving examples, nor is it a "royal flag" or standard of the Goryeo monarchy. , , -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

→ this passage appears to be the specific passage in the Gaoli Tujing where the flag is mentioned.
Nonetheless, the image is probably unsuitable for wikipedia due to its highly speculative nature until it can be proven that it is based off of an actual surviving flag from the period (which I think would be very unlikely). -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the War Memorial of Korea page which is referenced in the file page only cites the aforementioned Gaoli Tujing entry as its source (). Nonetheless, it was a ceremonial flag (의장기) and not a royal banner of some sort, so it definitely shouldn't be used to represent Goryeo as a whole. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, I would like to recommend that you research this topic in more detail.

This flag was actually used during the Goryeo Dynasty, and records of it remain in a book written by an envoy from the Northern Song Dynasty during the period when Goryeo existed. Additionally, it has been reconstructed by Korea’s official institution, the War Memorial Museum, based on that book as well as flags that also existed during the Joseon Dynasty.

鳳旗 鳳旗二. 其制, 身與旒皆黃, 法土數也. 中繪飛鳳, 鳳之爲物, 身被五綵. 位應中宮. 蓋五行, 非土不生. 故五方之色, 備於羽毛, 所宜取象. 其行, 在太白旗之次. - 宣和奉使高麗圖經(Xuanhe Fengshi Gaoli Tujing). 旗幟

This flag was used by the honor guard when the king of the Goryeo Dynasty was on procession. The translation “Royal Flag” has also been used in academic papers registered by official Korean institutions. 이영희. (2014). 우리나라 의장기(儀仗旗)의 디자인 연구. 커뮤니케이션디자인학연구, 48, 75-86.(Lee Young-He (2014). A Study on the Design of Royal flags in Korea. The Study on Communication Design, 48, 75-86.)

Therefore, there is no significant problem with using this flag in the template of this document.--Samhanin (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment as the creator of the image. But I am firmly convinced that the flag is unsuitable for this article, or the infobox at the very least.
Firstly, it appears to me that the only source the War Memorial of Korea has consulted for the recreation of the flag is this single passage on the Gaoli Tujing. Since the flag is not based upon any surviving examples or paintings (or written records of very specific dimensions), then it is a highly speculative piece of work, whether the expertise of the War Memorial of Korea was involved or not. There is simply not enough elaboration in the aforementioned passage of which such a detailed design could have been accurately derived of.
Secondly, the translation "Royal Flag" is misleading in the sense that the flag was not a royal standard of some sort which was used to represent the Goryeo monarchy as a whole (unlike File:Flag of the king of Joseon.svg, which actually was used as the personal royal banner (어기) to represent the king), but merely for ceremonial purposes. Korean academics sometimes make up terminology for English abstracts when there simply isn't a widely used translation for a concept.
In a nutshell, if we cannot guarantee that this specific flag design would've looked 99% identical to what was actually used back then, then it shouldn't be used on the infobox. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not importan. I’m sorry, but that amounts to nothing more than your personal interpretation. You have not presented any relevant evidence from experts and are simply repeating your own assertions. In contrast, I have provided historical evidence: the flag in question is recorded in a historical text written by a Chinese envoy who personally visited Goryeo during the Goryeo period. Furthermore, the ceremonial flag currently used was created by a Korean state institution based on that historical text and on flags that existed during the Joseon period.
In addition, regarding the translation of the inscription on the flag, I have cited a paper written by a scholar whose work is indexed in the Korean KCI database. Unless you can present evidence from scholarly papers, contemporary historical records, or materials from verified public institutions, it is difficult for me to accept the opinion of someone who is merely an individual Wikipedia user. --Samhanin (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The evidence you have provided does not refute the point of my claim, and I believe I have already cited enough evidence on my original comment. My point here is that it is misleading to display a speculative recreation of one of Goryeo's many, many ceremonial flags, which is based off of a single passage in a written historical source and is not based off of any imagery from surviving examples or other relics, as the single "Royal Flag" that represents the Kingdom of Goryeo as a whole.
Let's go back to the sole historical source this flag is based off of. It just says that the Bong-gi only had a five-colored pheonix drawn inside it. It doesn't mention whether the pheonix was facing north or south, or how many additional symbols were surrounding it. It is too vague as to accurately provide for such a detailed design. The War Memorial can improvise flags for whatever purpose it may serve, but in Wikipedia we shouldn't use them per se per WP:V.
Furthermore, you can't assert "Royal Flag" as the single most commonly accepted translation of 의장기 with only one source. For instance, this KCI listed source translates "의장기" as "Honor Guard flag". Searching up 의장기 in AKS's glossary of Korean Studies also shows that it was also translated as "guardian flag" in a 2006 book. Additionally, the 2014 source from 이영희 you provided says that there were 61 different 의장기 variants in Goryeo. So why should the Bong-gi be the sole example that gets to represent Goryeo entirely? I am not opposed to the use of the flag anywhere else in the article as long as the captions provide that it is a speculative recreation. It just shouldn't be in a place where an English-speaking reader would erroneously interpret it as the sole "Royal Flag" (in caps) which represented the royal family of Goryeo, like the British Royal Standard. 00101984hjw (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Now you're giving me the supporting data. If we had started the discussion, I think it would have been easier for each other to give us the supporting data sooner. Okay, let's go over it one by one. irst of all, it was not I who restored this flag, but a national institution of Korea. The direction of the phoenix was not something I interpreted arbitrarily. Moreover, on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, it is not uncommon for flags or symbols to be used in articles based on citations from scholars or public institutions. For example, the flag of Safavid Iran is displayed on Wikipedia even though no physical example survives, based on a quotation from a scholar. Second, you stated that this flag was one of many ceremonial royal flags, and that claim is correct. However, this particular flag was used during the king’s royal procession. In East Asia, the phoenix was especially recognized as a symbol of the tiān zǐ(Son of Heaven)...봉황은 성천자(聖天子)의 상징으로 인식되었다. 천자가 거주하는 궁궐문에 봉황의 무늬를 장식하고 그 궁궐을 봉궐(鳳闕)이라고 했으며, 천자가 타는 수레를 봉연(鳳輦) · 봉여(鳳輿) · 봉거(鳳車)라고 불렀다. 중국에서 천자가 도읍한 장안(長安)을 봉성(鳳城)이라 하였고 궁중의 연못을 봉지(鳳池)라고 불렀다.... Encyclopedia of Kroean Culture . Therefore, among the five animal flags, this one specifically represented the center. Third, I also understand and accept the translation you found, since it is a scholar’s translation. However, it seems that the translation may vary because the ceremonial guard did not only escort the king but sometimes also accompanied the state’s generals. I understand your concern, so I insist on continuing to use it in this document by annotating the flag, because it has already been clearly recorded in medieval Chinese envoys that the flag was used at the time, and it is also the state agency of Korea that restored it. --Samhanin (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the flag itself; it is historic, and it was indeed recreated by the War Memorial. The only thing I staunchly oppose here is the use of the flag in the infobox for the article, which should be reserved for national flags (like the Safavid example, for instance) or other flags which was the primary symbol of the entirety of a country. The big problem here is the lack of sources. I agree that this specific ceremonial flag was likely considered more important than other variations due to its pheonix ensign and its central position during royal ceremonies. But we have far too little sources to decisively assert that this was the one flag which symbolized the Goryeo nation and its royal family. We literally have one brief passage from a book written by a Chinese scholar to back up its very existence, which doesn't say anything about the symbolic importance of the thing other than the fact that it was flown in the middle during ceremonies. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As a compromise, why don't we move the flag to the #Government section for now? I think it really belongs there, next to Em's quote about the Goryeo worldview. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I have made it clear in a footnote that this flag was not the only 'Uijanggi' of the Goryeo period. I also addressed, in a footnote, the issue regarding the translation('Royal flag / Ceremonial flag / Honor Guard flag') of Uijanggi that you pointed out. Therefore, English-speaking users are unlikely to misunderstand this flag as the sole flag of Goryeo --Samhanin (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I still find it off that such a trivial piece of imagery is being used on the front face of the Goryeo article as a whole. I get why you'd want to keep it there; it's admittedly a good design, and I suppose you put much effort into digitizing it. But I find it awkward that "one of the many flags of Goryeo" is being displayed in the national/official flag position. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I would ask that you refrain from repeatedly referring to my efforts. My argument for using this flag is not based on my own efforts, but on the fact that the flag has a clear historical and institutional source. You also agreed that this flag carries stronger symbolic significance. Moreover, I have addressed nearly all of the points you raised through footnotes. As in the case of the Mahdist State article, readers of this document should now be able to understand more clearly what kind of character this flag has.--Samhanin (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think a third opinion could be appreciated here. - 00101984hjw (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea to keep the status quo until there are opinions from other users --Samhanin (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

(I saw the notification at WT:KO.) I am not very concerned about the accuracy of this image – for comparison, many images for coats of arms are based purely off of text descriptions. I believe that a flag like this one was used in the Goryeo court, and that a reasonably accurate reconstruction was made by a reliable source, the War Memorial of Korea. This reconstruction cannot be perfect, but I think I'm willing to accept that.

However, we can still discuss the presentation of the flag. This flag is currently given great prominence in the article – it is the first image the reader sees and shown up in the page preview. Based on the footnote they added, it looks like Samhanin and 00101984hjw generally agree that this flag was one of many flags used in a ceremonial role in royal processions. It is clear this was not the sole national flag of Goryeo. I understand the desire to use a symbol of some kind, but we need to be careful not to make present this flag as an official national flag in the modern sense. On the other hand, we have a real national symbol, the seal (also graciously vectorized and uploaded by Samhanin), presented right alongside it. I'm currently wondering if it would be possible to swap these, so that the seal appears first and on the left, and is also used as the page preview image. Maybe that would be a good compromise.

For comparison, the articles on the contemporary Song dynasty, Yuan dynasty, and Ming dynasty, two of which have attained featured status, present no national symbol or only the seal in the infobox. Toadspike [Talk] 12:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I am still concerned that we may be giving the flag too much weight just by simply putting it on the infobox, even when it's not on the image preview. Just because the pheonix flag was plausibly given more weight over other ceremonial flags doesn't render it a statewide symbol of some sort which would constitute for its position on the top of this article. Note that Xu Jing (徐兢), the Northern Song scholar who wrote the Gaoli Tujing, barely elaborates on the weight each ceremonial flag carried other than their general location and order. Goryeo used all kinds of flags showing sacred animals, including ones depicting the Five Dragon Kings (五方龍中旗), the Qilin (기린기; 麒麟旗), and the Vermillion Bird (朱雀中旗). Also I don't see what additional value a mere ceremonial flag can provide here when we already have a good seal. Chinese dynasties used various ceremonial flags as well (like the Northern Song 瑞鶴旗), but we don't use them on any of the Chinese dynasty articles.
On the other hand, I think this flag could really fit next to Henry Em's quote in the #Government section where he explains how prior to the Mongol conquest Goryeo saw itself as its own domain independent from China (Gaoli Tujing was written in early 12th C). -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've asked some folks who know more about infoboxes than I do whether it would be possible to switch the order of the images with a parameter, and was told that adding a parameter to do that is not generally a good idea. So we'd have to simply put the seal in the "flag" parameter and the flag in the "seal" parameter, which isn't ideal. I think, if we can't find a compromise, that I will have to support moving the flag out of the infobox and farther down the article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed reply as I have just gotten off work. To state my conclusion first, I support the compromise proposal suggested by Toadspike. Even without changing the parameter itself, there are several ways to prioritize the seal in the layout.

I will now respond step by step. First, I do not think the comparison between the infoboxes of ancient Chinese dynasties and that of Goryeo is entirely appropriate. The process through which the Goryeo flag came to be used is as follows:
1.Contemporary historical records from the Goryeo period.
2. Based on those records, as well as precedents from the subsequent Joseon dynasty, a state institution reconstructed the flag.
3. Using those materials, Wikipedia/Wikimedia user then produced the flag image.

In my view, ancient Chinese dynasties likely had similar traditions of royal or ceremonial flags, much like those found in historical Korean states. However, I am not aware of whether the modern successor states of ancient China—the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China—have attempted to reconstruct such flags based on historical records. Nor have Wikipedia/Wikimedia editors attempted to create such flags for ancient Chinese dynasties on that basis. What I mean to say is that the use of only seals in the infoboxes of English Wikipedia articles on Chinese dynasties may not be an appropriate comparison here, since those cases did not go through the same process as this article.

Additionally, the point raised by 00101984hjw—that Goryeo used a variety of flags—was already mentioned extensively in the previous discussion, and I agree with it already. The current Goryeo article already explains this in detail in the footnotes, and it also cites a reputable Korean encyclopedia to explain why the phoenix banner is considered somewhat more distinctive among them.

Finally, I am quite skeptical about the suggestion to place the Goryeo flag next to the paragraph discussing Henry Em’s argument. Although this banner was used during royal processions and similar occasions, there is no historical source indicating that it was used by Goryeo as a symbol to assert its independence against the Mongols or other external powers. Placing the flag in that context could unintentionally lead readers to assume that it served such a political function.

At the very least, if the flag were to be placed for the purpose suggested by 00101984hjw, additional historical evidence would be necessary—for example, sources indicating that the banner was banned by the Mongol government after the Mongol invasions, or other documentation connecting the banner to such a political meaning. --Samhanin (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, no worries about the delay. I've switched the flag and seal in the infobox. Regarding your individual points: It is not important that a state institution reconstructed the flag, only that a reliable source did. If a reputable museum or research institution in, say, the US or Japan had reconstructed the flag, I would be just as willing to accept its use. I'm also surprised to hear that your concern that placing the flag in the government section (presumably with a footnote) is misleading, but that placing it in the infobox (also with a footnote) is not. Toadspike [Talk] 16:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

For contemporary dynasties, we have reconstructed banners from the Western Xia and Jin dynasties (File:Banner of the Jin (Jurchen) dynasty.png, File:Banner Of Western Xia.png) both based on surviving paintings and used to showcase imperial might but absent from the infobox.
Also I don't think "process" really matters here in the first place. Perhaps the War Memorial was unique for its decision to reconstruct an uijanggi with no surviving imagery, maybe not, but the flag gets barely any coverage from RS for us to establish some kind of "Korea/Goryeo-specificity" argument for an unconventional infobox. For instance, if this flag was widely used among Korean academics in articles, official events, or books then you could argue that the pervasiveness of the image constitutes for its prominence in the infobox, but AFAIK this is certainly not the case. After a reverse image search the only source I can find which deals with this flag outside of UCGs like NamuWiki is the War Memorial.
In response to your opposition to my proposal, you did mention ahead how the pheonix was seen as the symbol of the Son of Heaven. If that wouldn't do, then we could move it somewhere else or just remove it altogether. Again, the only change I really wish to see here is the removal of the Bong-gi from the infobox. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Samhanin and Toadspike: since no one has responded to the talk page in a while I'll make one last deletion move. The discussion has gotten quite bloated and I don't think anything else can come out of this debate since everyone agrees on the nature of the flag and the only contention is really about weight, which is a fairly subjective issue.
If anyone decides to revert or add something more to Talk just letting you know I'll be WP:STICKing for now. If a fourth user brings the issue back we'll take it to an RfC then. Thanks. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I am currently working, so my responses may be slow. Also, since the discussion between myself and 00101984hjw has been going in parallel without convergence, I have been waiting for input from other users as well.
First of all, I find 00101984hjw’s actions somewhat difficult to understand. It was 00101984hjw who initially stated that third-party opinions were needed, and through the portal he created, Toadspike joined the discussion and provided a meaningful point of compromise. I agreed with that proposal. Even if 00101984hjw does not agree, a more appropriate course of action would be to wait for additional input from other users or to reach a more democratic consensus, for example through majority opinion. I would appreciate it if unilateral rollbacks could be avoided.
As for responding to 00101984hjw’s latest reply:
Regarding the claim about establishing the uniqueness of Korea/Goryeo, as I have repeatedly stated, this issue has already been addressed through footnotes and similar clarifications. There is no longer a risk that English-speaking readers would misunderstand the flag in the infobox as the sole flag. As for the example of Chinese dynastic flags, it is unclear whether those were used in royal ceremonies or were merely temporary flags for generals or military use. In the case of Goryeo’s ceremonial flags, similar traditions were maintained in successor states such as Joseon and the Korean Empire. Additionally, I do not believe that the argument about citation frequency is appropriate. While citation counts may help determine academic prominence in scholarly works, in the case of graphic images such as flags, scholars generally have little reason to cite them unless they are dealing with a very specialized topic. Samhanin (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I would rather set a specific timeframe and reach a final conclusion through a majority vote. The reason is that I have already addressed the two main issues raised by 00101984hjw—namely, the potential misunderstanding that 'the phoenix flag was the sole flag of Goryeo', and 'the translation of “UIJANGGI”'—by providing appropriate clarifications through footnotes. Furthermore, following Toadspike’s proposed compromise, the infobox was adjusted to place greater emphasis on the seal. Despite these efforts, 00101984hjw remains unsatisfied, and our positions continue to run in parallel without convergence. Samhanin (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize if you found my actions to be pressurizing. I felt that five days of no further comments were enough to assume that you've conceded your points. It's true that I'm not satisfied with the status quo, but since you've responded, I'll keep my promise and step away from the issue for now.
On a side note, I personally don't want to bring this to an RfC ("final conclusion through a majority vote") yet since we only have three people. If you wish to have an RfC, feel free to start one yourself. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think what you did was disrespectful to me and Toadspik for expressing opinions on the discussion. I hope you will be careful in the future. And for the RfC, I just presented an idea for one final agreement, because the current discussion continues to flow in a consumptive way--Samhanin (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know my comments could come across as cumbersome and disrespectful. I am sorry for that. I thought my points weren't being clear, which compelled me to write more than what was necessary. I really hope we can get along; I highly respect your work on maps and flag vectorization. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm here to hopefully defuse this, I do think both Samhanin and 00101984hjw, you both could have handled this a bit better. I recommend 00101984hjw that you try to ping someone at least a day or two in advance before reverting (if you've given them ample time, say 2-3 days bare minimum). Everyone has a life outside Wikipedia though Im sure some users have easier accessibility (for example, you might have a 15 minute commute while Sam might have a hour commute). I do agree with Samhanin that it did come off as disrespectful, but I also think Samhanin you could have been a bit more understanding of 00101984hjw given that he did give you five days to respond. Obviously he could have handled it better but I do think it was a reasonable assumption to assume that the discussion was over given that five days is a fairly long time. I think both of you came with genuine good intent and I had been following this discussion for a few days now and was very intrigued.

I don't really feel strongly on this, I slightly lean towards Toad's opinion, I do appreciate that Samhanin made a verified/accurate representation of one of Goryeo's flags though I do think it might be given a bit too much prominence. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I know it's a bit early since its only been two days but wanted to circle back on this, hopefully everyone's ok with each other/willing to talk it out or finish the vote on it? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. First of all, I accept 00101984hjw’s apology, and I don’t intend to respond to anyone in an overly sensitive manner. If my tone seemed too strong, I apologize for that as well. In fact, thanks to 00101984hjw’s input, I was able to add further information about the flag through additional footnotes.
I also agree with Sunnyediting99’s view. Regardless of how this discussion turns out, there has clearly been a meaningful exchange of perspectives, arguments, and evidence. However, since it may be difficult to reach a clear conclusion through this discussion alone, I had previously suggested the idea of initiating an RfC Samhanin (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a clear conclusion will come from a discussion alone. There already is a general agreement on the nature of the subject matter and the only contention is about prominence, which isn't a clear-cut issue. I think an RfC would be the cleanest way if we were to decisively put an end to the debate. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Flag placement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rough consensus for Option C, Government section.

Counting opinions I see roughly equal support for options B, C, and D, with A getting only one secondary mention. (C also gets one more secondary mention than either B or D.) But we don't decide RfC just by counting opinions but by reading them and how they meet our policies and guidelines. Now I read the above section that this RfC was based on, and from that, it looks like the discussants agree that this is a flag that was reconstructed by a reasonably respected institution to represent historical Goryeo. If it were just a user created image we should leave it out per WP:NOR, but if scholars use it, we can. Now the question is whether we should. Several people point out that this is only one Goryeo flag of many, and only used/reconstructed by one scholarly institution of many, so we would giving it undue weight as the, or even one of the, lead images. That's also one of our policies and guidelines. So it looks like the rough consensus here is to display the image in the article but lower, rather than in the lead, and with a caption explaining that this is one of several such flags, and a reconstruction.

--GRuban (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

---

How should the "phoenix flag" (File:Royal flag of Goryeo (Bong-gi).svg) be used in this article?

• Option A: As the first image in the infobox (example permalink)
• Option B: As the second image in the infobox (example permalink)
• Option C: In the section Goryeo § Government
• Option D: Do not include the image in this article at all

Please see the above section, § Flag issue, for previous discussion. 16:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Pings for previously-involved editors: User:00101984hjw, User:Samhanin, User:Sunnyediting99. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option B: Though Im not against Option A or C.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option B: I don't oppose 'Option A' because I insisted on Option A at first.

Samhanin (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option C or D I've said a lot already so to keep things brief, all of my concerns can be traced back to the fact that there's very little of anything about this flag outside of the enwiki. The flag is nonexistent in reliable sources outside of one single, currently archived page on the War Memorial of Korea website. Even with current captions, I'm concerned readers may misinterpret the flag as a symbol of great importance or archaeological prominence in contemporary Goryeo with its current position. --

00101984hjw (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option C or D for the reason stated above - there is indeed "very little of anything about this flag".

If we are to give it more prominence we need more to go on.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• I prefer Option C over Option B, but can accept either. I oppose A and D. I think this image is valuable and can be helpful for readers, so I oppose removing it, but I also worry that placing it at the top of the article could give readers the incorrect impression that this flag had a similar status to the sole national flag of a modern country. Toadspike [Talk] 18:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment If you decide on Option A or B I strongly suggest changing the small description under the flag. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Maltazarian Could you please be more specific? What change would you like to see? Toadspike [Talk] 08:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  Something describing what the flag is, like the name of the file "Royal flag of Goryeo", or the name of the flag itself if it has one. To be fair I shouldn't have said strongly as that suggests there's some urgent issue with it right now, which there isn't. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is no official name, though maybe "phoenix flag" comes close. It also isn't the sole royal flag; how much we emphasize that is the problem that spurred this whole RfC. I think the best we can do is add "royal" to the current caption: "One of the royal flags of Goryeo". Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wanted to bump this discussion, since its not entirely resolved and we have a spilt vote. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• D based on the above discussion, our articles should not anachronistically promote historical symbols to meet current cultural standards. CMD (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.