Talk:Hanbok

The first "Water-Moon Avalokitesh varapainting" features three Song-style noble costumes. The one on the right is presumed to be a maid, not a noble, not a Song costume. I want you to separate them. This is a misconception that all the characters in the illustration are dressed in Song-style clothing.

Should be italicized, per MOS:KO-ENGLISH. Proof: doesn't appear in any mainstream English-lang dictionaries. seefooddiet (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing hanbok listed in the OED and Cambridge. Sarsenet (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh you're right. I'll undo it seefooddiet (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon and @Sarsenet it seems theres been an influx of AI images onto this page and other pages by @안드레아박. I don't really have an issue with the content of their edits (when its sourced) but from what I understand Wikipedia strongly discourages use of AI for imagery right? Plus I don't see the necessity for using AI images when we have a lot of real-life photo examples already but would appreciate your thoughts. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

please, stop using this file "Hanbok (female and male).jpg". this photo is not similar to traditional hanbok.

please, stop using this file.

and i colorize this image with my hand, pixel by pixel, for several hours. just sketch of this image is drawn by ai. 안드레아박 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

While I can tell your intentions are good, we don't need AI imagery (even if it's just the sketch) when other photos are adequate. There are already like 50 pictures in this article; do we really need more, especially AI ones? grapesurgeon (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

To add onto my previous comment, I'd much prefer if many images in this article are removed. Too many images hurts article quality. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

please, stop using this file "Hanbok (female and male).jpg". this photo is not similar to traditional hanbok.

please, stop making wrong information about hanbok. please.

none of this photos on this article describe modern hanbok and even traditional hanbok.

this file "Hanbok (female and male).jpg" distort image about hanbok.

please, stop making wrong information about hanbok, please.

i don't know what hanbok means to you. i saw hanbok many times. when people make wrong information about hanbok, my heart is broken.

i sincerely request you not to use this file "Hanbok (female and male).jpg", please. because this photo is not similar to traditional hanbok and even modern hanbok. 안드레아박 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this specific image. If you want to change the image, change the image (preferrably provide a source to prove what you're saying is true). But don't add more images to the article, and don't use AI images please grapesurgeon (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you use this image? "Hanbok (female and male).jpg" do you think this is hanbok? it is not similar to traditional hanbok. see the hanbok of 18th ~ 19th centuries. it is not traditional hanbok. and do you think it is pretty? do you like hanbok?

This article do not have any photos of modern hanbok. Even there is photo of North Korean style hanbok. Then why can't i show modern hanbok photos? Why does this article show only north korean style hanbok? These is all real photos. These photos is all real photos, no AI photos. These photo is all real photos. AI photo is already deleted.

This article do not have any modern hanbok photos and photos about traditional hanbok. Why are you deleting photos??? Do you think this article describe traditional hanbok and modern hanbok? Why do you delete photos of modern hanbok and traditional hanbok??? Why do you destorying this article??? What part do you think this article photo describe real hanbok??? What parts??? Why do you prevent other person to upload photos of real hanbok?? If you think there is too many photos, you can delete other unnecessary photos. If you want to remove unnecessary photos, remove unnecessary photos, not only modern and tradition hanbok photos.

Do not remove only photos of modern and tradition hanbok. 안드레아박 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I can tell you're just trying to improve the article, and I'm glad you are. But we need to discuss these points:

1. Do not accuse us of "destroying the article" again, even if you think our changes are not improvements. This is considered WP:TENDENTIOUS and can lead to your being banned from Wikipedia if you continue doing this. Also, I can easily accuse you of "destroying the article" as well because I don't agree with some of your changes, but I don't. Do you know why I don't? It's rude, distracting, and we're all supposed to be on the same side of making this article better. Stop doing this.
2. You claim the newer image is better but you have provided zero proof that it is. I don't know whether to believe you or not. Also, I explicitly said before I don't have strong feelings on that specific image.
3. What I do have feelings about is that there are already too many images in this article, and you keep adding more. Please hold back from doing so.

grapesurgeon (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to support Grapesurgeon's points here, especially in regards to the accusations/personal attacks that we are "destroying the article" when it was like this for several years now.

Also the fact that inserting AI images onto this article are not helpful at all... Neither grapesurgeon nor I (or any other edits) are "destroying" this article and most of these pictures I assume were uploaded throughout the years by various editors. Also Im not really sure how adding AI pictures (or even ones drawn by you with the help of AI) are improving this article.

I also want to emphasize that 안드레아박 has done three reverts and any more reverts will be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement due to Wikipedia:Edit warring. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Grapesurgeon and others. I've been following the discussion here and would like to offer my perspective.

I understand your concern about AI images, and of course, Wikipedia’s policy on AI-generated content should be followed. However, I can’t agree with the argument that there are too many Hanbok images. On the contrary, I think the article still lacks enough visual references, especially for readers on mobile devices. Many sections appear text-heavy with little visual balance.

I believe @안드레아박’s contributions have been made in good faith to improve the article’s visual accuracy and diversity, and I appreciate their efforts to include more examples of both traditional and modern Hanbok. I’d like to ask — on what grounds are the images added by @안드레아박 or other editors being removed? If they are properly sourced and relevant to illustrating traditional and modern Hanbok, then removing them seems unnecessary. The goal should be improving the article’s representativeness and accuracy, not simply reducing the image count. DongyiKoguryo (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:GALLERY is why I think there's too many. Also see "less is more" on MOS:IMAGE. Also 안드레아박's images are unsourced.

Also you asked me to get consensus first before reversion, but that's not how wikipedia works. Consensus is achieved for changes; until consensus WP:STATUSQUO is maintained grapesurgeon (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A huge issue with 안드레아박's contributions is that they mix legitimate images with AI images, to the point that sometimes I had to manually click through each edit they did to find which ones were AI and which ones weren't. Also I do think it makes far more of an impression to have a select number of images (perhaps a slight reduction on this page) than just stress the point again and again and again with a flood of images. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Grapesurgeon and @Sunnyediting99,

I understand the concern about having too many images, but such assessments are ultimately subjective and can vary among editors. Therefore, this alone should not be considered a sufficient reason for reversion.

It also appears that several of the removed images were not AI-generated and included clearly indicated, reliable sources. I would appreciate it if we could review these cases more carefully rather than applying blanket removals.

The image I added was placed in accordance with WP:GALLERY — it was positioned individually near the relevant text, not grouped together or used decoratively. Its purpose is to support the article’s content and improve the reader's understanding.

As for MOS:IMAGE, the “less is more” principle is a recommendation, not a strict rule. It advises against excessive or redundant imagery, but it does not prohibit the use of relevant, informative images that enhance article quality.

Regarding WP:STATUSQUO, maintaining the previous version should not automatically justify reversions. The guideline emphasizes that editors should avoid repeated reverts during an active discussion and work collaboratively toward consensus.

In all cases, it is important to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and explain reversion decisions clearly so that our discussion can remain constructive and focused on improving the article. DongyiKoguryo (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

My concern is more general than it is specifically about your images. I just think the overall article has too many images due to the galleries; images next to text (as long as they're not squished together) are more ok. But think of it like this: hypothetically if an article has like 50 images in one gallery and one image in running text, overall that's way too many images even if the one image in running text is more justifiable.

But idt you're interpreting our actions fairly; we assumed good faith (not sure why you brought up AGF) and reversions were made with rationale. We also correctly applied reversion and status quo protocol. It's incorrect to want to change things first then expect discussion.

If you want to add that running text image, ok, but could you at least cut out some images from the galleries while doing so? Otherwise people just keep cramming in more images with no momentum to reduce them grapesurgeon (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for clarifying your concerns.

As a point of reference, you might take a look at the articles on the national costumes of Korea's neighboring countries, which are also surprisingly rich in images — a common approach for topics that are highly visual, such as clothing.

Nevertheless, to address your concern about the number of images, I am happy to propose a compromise. If the article feels overloaded, perhaps we could remove the following images, which seem relatively less essential:

From the Women's everyday wear section of the Joseon dynasty: the "Young people's outgoing" image (Hyewon-Yeonso.dapcheong.jpg).

From the Men's everyday wear section: either the "Waryonggwan and hakchangui" portrait from 1863 (Joseon-Portrait of Heungseon Daewongun-01.jpg) or the "Photograph taken in 1863" (Koreans oldest pic group.jpg).

This adjustment could help manage the image count while retaining most of the illustrative content for readers. DongyiKoguryo (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply but im fine with that Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 제70주년 광복절 중앙경축식 한복.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)