Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 2

Korean name
Hangul	이름 / 성명
Hanja	이름 / 姓名
Revised Romanization	ireum /; seongmyeong
McCune–Reischauer	irŭm / sŏngmyŏng

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Collaborations again?

Back when the notice board was our primary gathering-point, we had a short-lived program of "collaborations of the month." One of them even became a featured article, although another one still has yet to reach that mark. Shall we start the COTM again? Above, it was suggested that Imjin War (I know, I know, but the short title is easier to type) would be a good target for collaboration. Any other suggestions? -- Visviva 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's what I suggested in Imjin war discussion. (Wikimachine 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Let's do it then. We'll make Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) the first COTM, and plan to choose a new collaboration in the first week of December. I should note that I won't be able to contribute much to this myself -- military history is not one of my strong suits -- but will be happy to help out if I can. -- Visviva 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the current collaboration should always be stored in Template:Cotmk. You can add a nifty little message-banner to appropriate pages by adding this code:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/cotm}}

...which transcludes this page. I have, for instance, added it to the top of my user page. BTW, that message-box is a little shabby; improvements to style (both graphic and prose) would be most welcome. -- Visviva 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Working groups

I've been thinking about having working groups/task forces for specific subtopics here. These would be simpler and easier to set up than separate WikiProjects. For example, many current members of this project are particularly interested in the military history of Korea. Why not have a "milhist working group" where those editors can gather to discuss issues related to article improvement in that particular area? Such a working group could also coordinate closely with the military-history project, to the benefit of both that project and this one. I would also like to reconstitute the old SKCC project as a working group on South Korean geography. Other areas I can think of that might be suitable for working groups are general housekeeping, North Korea, Korean cuisine -- each of these has a specific small group of editors who actively work in that area. -- Visviva 13:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Only some 15 people. One brand, one project. That way we can be unified in our directions. (Wikimachine 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

You have a good point. I think for things like the Collaboration we should have only one (at least for the foreseeable future), so that we can focus our energies. On the other hand, like Wikipedia itself, this project benefits from being as open as possible; we can best do that through cooperation that relates to individual users' specific interests. Most people's field of interest only covers a small part of Coreana; that is especially true of our highest-quality contributors. So I think we will serve our contributors, and Wikipedia, best, if we encourage the formation of working groups. -- Visviva 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea, provided that we all work hard. I'm particularly interested in Korean military history and general Korean history. If members can divide up into certain groups that they are strong or interested in, that would help Korean articles a lot. There's no point trying to improve an article if you are not interested in it. Good friend100 22:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi, I've created a welcome message for new editors, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Welcome. This is to be placed on the talk pages of editors who have not been welcomed, and is drawn from {{welcomeg}}. It could use some further customization, and perhaps a more prominent mention of this project. A few lines in Korean wouldn't be a bad idea either. At any rate, you can use it by typing {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Welcome}} on the new user's talk page. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the template, you guys must teach me how to make those =). I think you should put a link for the stub and cleanup list. And yes, you are right, a stronger message about Wikiproject Korea is needed since the template is to introduce editors to Wikiproject Korea as well. Good friend100 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

improve the project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo. I think we should organize our stubs and/or needed articles like the one at wikiproject Japan on their todo list.

Also, here is a breakdown of proposed departments for this wikiproject. Its just a suggestion, we can add or delete them.

Military history department
History department
Korean Cuisine department
Culture department
Biography department
Media department

Good friend100 15:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We're too good to emulate WikiProject Japan. These are not "ToDo"s. They are "Department"s. (Wikimachine 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Re the list.... See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/To do (formerly here). I'd say it's fairly well organized, and the formatting is spectacular. :-) However, improvements can and should be made, particularly when it comes to keeping the list up-to-date. -- Visviva 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the departments... glad we're progressing with this. I would recommend that we follow the common terminology among WikiProjects and call these either "working groups" (my favorite) or "task forces". This helps to emphasize their fluid and impermanent nature -- and also to avoid the appearance of bureaucracy. Not a big deal, though.

I think we should be careful to allow these groups to form from the bottom up, and only create them where a distinct group of editors already exists. That bodes well for military history, history, and cuisine ... but I'm not sure there's any distinct group of editors who work on "media" or "culture" as such. Perhaps "popular culture" would be a better label? One does see similar groups of editors working on Korean drama, film, and pop music articles. Just some thoughts... Thanks for all your work on this project. -- Visviva 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture is better department or "task force" since it covers a lot. How should we make our task forces and how should we divide up the groups?

I think the most important thing we need to do is get more editors. This Wikiproject will need many more editors to function efficiently. I suggest we place our templates on cuisine related articles and popular culture articles that are related to Korea. Good friend100 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of {{Korean}} to emphasize the WikiProject more. The nice thing about that template is that it's already on thousands of Talk pages, including many related to cuisine and popular culture. That template also now includes code that allows us to flag articles as associated with a particular working group (currently "skgeo," "dprk," and "milhist" are supported, but more can easily be added). It's also much older than most such templates (about 2 years older than WikiProject Japan, for instance), and predates not only this project but also the Portal and the notice board. You know, when that template was made (by User:Kokiri), the primary Korea-related gathering place on WP was Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). Those were the days. :-) But I digress... At any rate, I hope we can continue using {{Korean}} as our primary of communicating across Korea-related discussion pages. -- Visviva 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups, which doubles as a template (neat, huh?). Please feel free to jump in & improve it. -- Visviva 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that {{korean}} and the original WikiProject Korea templates show simultaneously on several talk pages. I think that we ought to get rid of the original WikiProject Korea template on all talk pages. (Wikimachine 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Lim Yo-Hwan name convention

The article for "Boxer" (임요환) is at Lim Yo-Hwan. The article says its Revised Romanization of Korean is "Im Yoh-wan". I can verify via machine translator that "Im Yoh-wan" is correct, but I am not sure why Lim Yo-Hwan is used as article title. Can someone tell me what should be the name used for the Wikipedia article (either based on his official English name or Wikipedia's Korean transliteration policy)? Thanks. --Voidvector 11:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good questions! "Yoh-wan" is not correct. The article (at least currently) doesn't say "Yoh-wan," it says "Yohwan," not indicating syllable breaks; RR allows you to put syllable breaks into a name by using a hyphen, in which case it would be "Yo-hwan." As for Lim / Im... unfortunately, no consistent scheme is used for Romanizing Korean names, and a lot of family names are rendered in very strange ways that represent older / less common pronunciations and spellings. For instance, the "Roh" in Roh Moo-hyun is both spelled and pronounced "No" in Korean; there's no R or H. It's a similar story with Lim and Lee. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) says to use Revised Romanization for South Koreans, unless there's a well-established English spelling. That would indicate "Im Yo-hwan". But if there are lots of English-language articles about him already that use a different spelling, you could choose to stick with that one. --Reuben 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We're making progress in that Koreans aren't generally writing their names out as though they had three, viz Lim Yo Hwan with the result that westerners will assume Hwan to ba a middle name and call Mr. Lim "Yo". Regarding Lim vs Im and Lee vs Yi, I think there are some regional differences in whether that initial L gets sounded. If I remember correctly, the more northern dialects will sound the L. The family name "roh/noh" is trickier. In both Korean and Japanese the r, l, and n are often indistinguishable to western ears - the Japanese word for an inn, ryokan, is a good example. And I think the 'h' in 'Roh' is simply to clarify the sound of the 'o'. --Dan 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lim" is the most common rendering of the family name 임. If you polled people with this family name, it's a safe bet that at least 80% of them would spell it that way. (The situation is similar to the much more common name Lee, properly romanized "I"). For a bit more detail, see the article at Lin (surname). From a cursory Googling of "Lim Yo-hwan -wikipedia" vs. "Im Yo-hwan -wikipedia," it appears that the "Lim" version of this gamer's name is about 10 times more common than the "Im" version. -- Visviva 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

조선총독부의 조선사편수회 Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe

Endroit are trying to remove some part of the article in Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe even though it is cited article. I wish somebody help me to progress the article about Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe(조선총독부의 조선사편수회). --Hairwizard91 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Reorganization Agent of Korean History#Samguk Yusa, regarding the Simplified Chinese character 国 on the left side of Image:Hwanin hwanguk.jpg. Could this character have been used in the 13th century original version of Samguk Yusa? Please comment.--Endroit 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just describe it based on the article of Korea Britanica encyclopedia. You seems to do original research. --Hairwizard91 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Military history

I've added some content to the Military history working group. There is already a lot of military history in the Korean history working group, up through the Joseon dynasty. Therefore, it seems natural to put 20th century items, especially Korean War-related articles, under military history. There are a few requests for translation on the page now, if anybody's interested in a place to get started. --Reuben 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! The exact line between hist and milhist needs to be worked out, but I don't think we should limit the Milhist group entirely to 20th-century stuff; many project members also have an interest in earlier Korean military history, particularly the Imjin War ... both Korean War and earlier-history aficionados could no doubt benefit from a bit of intellectual cross-pollination. :-) As this goes forward, I hope we can also establish good relations with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Anyway, thanks for getting the group started. I am a certified K-E translator, so I will try to help out with those translation requests (if nobody gets to them first); however, that should probably wait until I finish the city & county articles for /DPRK. Cheers, -- Visviva 12:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but there's been a series of Japanese vandalism on many articles that have led to page protection. This has happened to Korea, Kofun period, Joseon Dynasty have been protected recently, and similar thing has happened to Korea under Japanese rule, Battle of Myeongnyang, and I'm sure others.

It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now at Korean-Japanese disputes. Please help revert the vandalism. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer.

What kinds of editing did occur. It is hard to find because of too much editing in there. Can you summarize it ?--Hairwizard91 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please be sure to add these and other pages to your "watchlist" and monitor changes. Maintaining the integrity of existing pages is at least as important as improving or adding new articles. The more people watching more articles, the faster we can undo and discourage these attacks. Thanks. Room218 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Room218 does not participate in the discussion at all. And, you reject all sources. However, all users who do not follow your opinion are repelled. If you escape from the discussion, and the edit battle is agitated, it will make big hatred in Japan and Korea. It wishes you to participate in TalkPage. --211.131.78.232 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And You Make an ID if You Want Real Discussion--Hairwizard91 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To be brutally frank, anonymous edit warrior, your command of English is not sufficient for a meaningful discussion. --Reuben 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, this might be a bit random, but I am kind of interested in helping you guys out in building/writing/revising articles related to Korea. I am currently in middle of exam period, but it'll be over by this week, and I would like to spend some time during the vacation to help. Let me know if there's anything I can do. My NateOn ID is [email protected], AIM is jinsaeyoo, and MSN is [email protected]. Jinsaeyoo 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Jinsae Yoo

Project page organization

Could someone maybe clean up this page so that it's more newbie-friendly? There are a lot of people adding their names, but I don't see much project activity (maybe I haven't found the right place to look?)

The long list of template boxes is distracting, and their purpose is not clear. Also, combine the "Articles that need improvement" heading with the "To do" table? Is this page just a to-do list, or is there a target article or topic? Goguryeo 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I'll do a little tidying if nobody beats me to it. The alternative templates should probably go to Template talk:WikiProject Korea; the two headings should definitely be merged (more specifically, the article listings should be added to /To_do). There is a target article, currently Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), although I'm afraid things have been a little slow there thus far. For other collaborations, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups ... I note that the "History" group has yet to be started; perhaps you'd like to give it a shot? -- Visviva 06:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links being removed

Having failed to solve this user to user, I'm going to bring the topic up here next. I noticed last night that User:T-rex has gone through over a dozen Korean city and town articles on November 17th, changing the position of the template and removing links put up to the same page on the Galbijim Wiki. The removal was done on the following pages (one or two here might have been left alone but I think these are all of them):

Most of these cities and counties are quite small and had the government website, open directory category, and later on the Galbijim wiki link added as our pages as I always do when an article here is a stub and the one on our wiki is much more in depth. Pages like Pocheon especially are only about three sentences long, and since I spent a large part of the summer translating information directly from Korean to English and a lot of other users who live in the areas write about them as well, I had assumed that the removal was a mistake or done with a bot.

Here are three corresponding pages from our wiki to illustrate the difference in content:

However, it turns out the user believes he has done Wikipedia a service by removing 'spam' from a 'Wikipedia mirror', and the surprisingly unfriendly exchange we had was as follows:

User_talk:T-rex#dongducheon

== [[dongducheon]] ==

Hi - I noticed that you removed a link to the Galbijim Wiki page on Dongducheon a few days ago - was this done automatically by the bot you run? I hope it hasn't been running around removing links willy-nilly as I doubt I could keep up considering the number of town articles. Mithridates 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I just noticed that you have removed the links to each and every one of them. You are aware that our wiki uses the same license and has much more detail on Korea-related topics than the pages here? Please restore them. Thanks. Mithridates 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No this wasn't done by a bot. I noticed the links when I was fixing the templates on all of those pages, and figured I may as well remove the links as well, seeing as I already was editing all of those pages. This has nothing to do with GFDL license issues but that your site is simply a wikipedia mirror and as such there is no need to link to it. Please see WP:EL for more details --T-rex 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The site is most certainly not a Wikipedia mirror. All the links you removed were pages created by our users, and are much more detailed than the pages you find here on Wikipedia. Dongducheon, Gunpo and Icheon are three of numerous examples where you have removed a link to a page much more detailed than the one here. The only time links are added are when the Galbijim Wiki page is much more detailed than the ones here, and when we use content straight from Wikipedia we have a template indicating the source and do not link from the Wikipedia page. Please restore the links you have removed and be more careful in the future. Mithridates 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not spam your site all over wikipedia in the future. As you seem unable to click the link yourself let me reitterate something from WP:EL Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. One should avoid Links that are added to promote a site. One should avoid Links to wikis. Your site fails on all three counts. Regardless if the page is actually a "mirror" or a "fork" these pages are mostly just content from wikipedia with a few images thrown in. --T-rex 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Missed the first sentence? - Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article - which is exactly what they are. You are still stuck on your unfounded assertion that the site is a Wikipedia mirror, which it is not, and you have left a large number of stub articles on small towns with little to no English information where they could have used information from the Galbijim Wiki. A large amount of the info on towns was created by myself over an entire month, translated directly from Korean sites, and some users here have even taken our pages, copied them verbatim on Wikipedia to make new articles and have claimed them as their own. See this page compared to this one - the article was created by me in November and copied onto Wikipedia the next year. This is but one example of many. Now once more, please restore the links or I will be forced to bring the matter up elsewhere. Mithridates 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is not the subject of the article, that means like Google should have a link to google.com Regardless to if your site is a mirror or not it still qualfies for half of the list of things not to link to. I'd be carefull about bringing this up elsewhere as think that you'll just end up getting yourself blocked --T-rex 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not taken aback by the removal of the links so much as the following:

Assume good faith was completely thrown out the window here by jumping to the conclusion that after my time and work here on the various language Wikipedias that one day I decided to up and spam the encyclopedia through the ever so busy Korean small city and town articles
I only found out about the changes through chance; the user failed to bring it up with me on my talk page
The user does not seem to have a great deal of interest in Korea in the first place
The user believes that bringing up this subject should result in a block on my part
The user is not nice

However, having not had a conflict with a user besides on the Colonization of Ceres page (kind of silly but true), I'm not sure what the next step is and I don't really care to go around to the pages and fight over links that another user believes to be spam. According to this user, the one-sentence "Yangju is a city in South Korea" is fine the way it is, and doesn't need a link to a page with much more information that can even be copied over to Wikipedia under the same license. So what to do? Request mediation? Get consensus here and present a unified front to the user? Something else? Mithridates 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Sorry you had that experience, Mith. I believe the Galbijim links are very helpful here, and I think most editors with local knowledge would share that opinion. First thought: it might help if we had a Template:Galbijim, along the lines of Template:Baekgwa which I created after a bunch of links to Korean encyclopedias were incorrectly removed as "search results." Of course, if anyone really has it in for Galbijim the template will certainly be taken to WP:TfD, but even in that case it's better to have one big discussion than a thousand little battles. -- Visviva 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Have created {{galbijim}}; it takes two arguments (the first is the Galbijim title and the second is the display name), but for articles whose titles on WP and GW are identical, it can be called with no arguments, like so:

*{{galbijim}}

I'll plan on replacing the Galbijim links on my next tour of Category:Geography of South Korea, and no doubt adding some new ones too. By the way, anyone with an interest in this area is encouraged to join the South Korean geography working group, and also to pitch in and improve a few city/county articles. Mithridates is quite right that most of these are still in horrible shape. -- Visviva 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree! The Galbijim links are useful and should stay. T-rex noted the current WP:EL's recommendations against wikis, but the actual text goes on to say "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors." Galbijim is fine by that test. Another objection was that "one should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article." Galbijim includes all kinds of local information, including a substantial amount that's outside the scope of Wikipedia. So again, it passes the test. But most importantly, these links are just useful when improving the articles themselves. --Reuben 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the template looks good except that it's galbijim.com instead of galbijim.org so I changed that. I'm glad everybody likes the wiki, and I don't remember if I mentioned it but it's going to be a year old tomorrow. Actually, for the geography of South Korea project it might also be good to list the pages of users on our wiki that live in certain areas in case anyone here has questions. One person worked for some weeks on the Nonsan article, another on the Bundang page for at least a month, and another user by the name of Skookum seems to have been everywhere. Mithridates 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Join the discussing for the correct name of Unified Silla

Because Silla could not ruler over all the territory of the Three kingdoms of Korea, and Balhae controlled the territory of destroyed Goguryeo, it cannot be said to be "unified silla". So, the term is now changed into "North South Period" by the schollars. In order to reflect on the current trends of historians, the term of Unified Silla should be moved to Silla in North South PeriodTalk:Unified_Silla. Please participate the discussion. --75.49.2.82 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Organization

Thanks for cleaning up, Visviva, that helps. But I still think things are too confusing for newbies and otherwise busy Wikipedians. As far as I can tell, there's no sense of community or coordinated action because there are just too many similar pages:

There's the Wikiproject and this talk page. Seems like the logical gateway.

There's the "notice board" and its talk page called "discussion board". Couldn't the "notice board" be combined with this Wikiproject page, and the "discussion board" be redirected to this talk page? There may be a technical difference, but it's not clear to me.

There's the Portal:Korea and its talk page. Does the "to do" list have to be duplicated in the Portal? There's no prominent links from the Portal to this Project, and vice versa. Shouldn't the "collaboration of the month" here result in the article being posted at the Portal? Maybe the talk page should redirect here, and nominations discussed here. Nothing's happening there.

There's a To do list and Complete to do. Do we really need both lists? There seem to be lots more overlapping pages like these.

Instead of directing people's attention, these pages just confuse and dilute, IMHO. Even on this project page, the "collaboration of the month" is easily overlooked because it's not integrated into the page design.

Or is it just me? Goguryeo 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you, things have gotten kind of messy here. A good bit of which is my fault...

In theory, there is a clear difference between the RWNB and the WikiProject, but in practice lots of stuff is getting posted here that would belong on the message-board, and vice versa. It was suggested some time ago that we merge that page and this one; I objected strongly at the time, but have changed my mind since; in practice, there really is no distinction between the two talk pages. I'm not so sure about the notice board itself, though.
Well, the "to do" list is duplicated on every page bearing the {{Korean}} template, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be on the Portal too.
- Links would be a good idea.
- In theory, portal-featuring is a sign of quality, so ideally articles would be featured there *after* being the subject of collaboration; however, perhaps it's better to do as you say.
- It might not be a terrible idea to merge the Portal talk page with this one, but this page is already going to be pretty busy if we merge it with the message board. It might be better to have a working group that would focus on gateway articles like Korea, and on the portal as a gateway article.
The "complete to do" list is intended to be, well, complete, which makes it different from the much shorter list at /to_do. But unfortunately, due to its lack of visibility it has been sorely neglected. I've been toying with some ideas for reviving it as a series of transcluded lists, so that for example each WG could maintain their own list of articles-to-be-created, which would be transcluded both on the WG page and on the "complete to do" page. Not sure if that's the best solution.
Design is a personal blind spot of mine (of course I'm just another member of the project, but I guess I'm responsible for that message box, at least). Please feel free to fix Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/cotm, or to suggest fixes. Would it help if the talk-message coloring was removed? Or is there a better way to specifically include Template:Cotmk in this page?

Thanks for your helpful criticism. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: have made a navigation table based on the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Does that improve things at all? -- Visviva 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Visviva, it looks great. Good friend100 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

More anonymous Japanese IP

Another anonymous Japanese IP address is working with User:Jjok to delete relevant introductory summary from Korea under Japanese rule. Please put these types of articles on your watchlist, although I realize a lot of people are off to their Thanksgiving vacations right now. Room218 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD note

Perhaps other WikiProject members can add some insights here? Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Family name categories The question is over whether it is appropriate to have categories organizing people by family name only. -- Visviva 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To all of the editors on Wikiproject Korea

Please join a working group. It will greatly improve any Korean related articles with knowledable editors in each field. Thank you for being part of Wikiproject Korea! Good friend100 00:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give input on seriousity and relevance of Korean company?

Please have a look at Brown's gas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)

http://www.browngas.com/ (website of B.E.S.T. KOREA CO.,LTD)

Related AfDs and some discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry#Strange_set_of_articles. We are suspecting that this technology is totally bogus and the companies are only existing to to collect money from uninformed investors. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a stock market watchdog, but in addition the entire business would be rather non-notable.

The creator of the articles is repeatedly assuring that B.E.S.T. KOREA CO.,LTD is a respected, big company in Korea, and its boosting of Brown's gas would make it notable.

Pjacobi 10:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, debate has been closed as delete. -- Visviva 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BAEKDUSAN

The French Wikipedia article for Baekdu Mountain, most likely written by a Chinese person, is VERY BIAS. Could someone who speaks French please fix the page up?French Wikipedia Article . Thanks --DandanxD 10:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Try asking someone in the Portal:France if there is a portal for France. Or, look up all the french speaking people through babel. Good friend100 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the french article fr:Changbai and there is nothing bias about it. It's an exact translation of the first paragraph of the english article Changbai, plus it includes all the names in the infobox. The signification of the name given: « mont des neiges éternelles », is the korean one: "Perpetually White Mountain Range", not the chinese one, but it's added now. Luccas 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

fr:Changbai corresponds to Changbai Mountains of en:. Currently, fr: doesn't have an article about Baekdu Mountain, which is a part of Changbai. This might have been a source for confusion. --Acepectif 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple questions

I see Visviva has been working hard (but alone) on the article assessments. Is there an easy way to see a list of, for example, high priority but low quality articles?

Also, can we find out how often an article page gets viewed? Is there a list of most popular articles, to help us prioritize? Goguryeo 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can easily tell if an article is bad generally if it is really short, has no footnotes or references, undeveloped information, and no pictures. Good friend100 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To one and all: Please feel free to jump in on the article assessment! Lots of lots of lots of work still to be done. Or see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Housekeeping for a more general set of tasks. Great way to get a feel for the current state of our Korea-related coverage.

Re Goguryeo's questions:

1. Not yet, but we could intersect the two category schemes if that's deemed useful. (so that each importance level would be subcatted by quality and vice versa). Or we could do some kind of thing involving a bot-compiled list.

2. No.

3. No, but there probably is a way to find the Korea-related pages with the most incoming links (although Template:Korean is bound to warp those stats somewhat). -- Visviva 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice, I think, to easily find a list of top priority articles that are in the worst shape. Just an idea for later. One more thing, is the template on the project page still being promoted, or is it superceded by the {{korean}} template? The latter seems much more useful. Goguryeo 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would defer to User:Good friend100 concerning {{WikiProject Korea}}. I believe the idea was for it to balance the similar templates used by other WikiProjects. I'm afraid I will always favor {{korean}}; it also has the advantage of already being on thousands of pages, and has been around for a long time (the original version was added to about 2,000 pages by User:Kokiri back in 2004, long before this sort of thing was common). I agree that intersecting the two categorization schemes is a good idea, but think it probably needs to wait until many more articles have been assessed. Cheers, -- Visviva 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

korean archaeological sites assessments

Hi, I have taken a stab at assessing the importance and priority level of some of the sites currently listed under the category of archaeological sites in Korea, for example, Pungnap Toseong, Anapji, and Heavenly Horse Tomb and others. I tried to adhere to the standards set for the development of Korean-related articles. Please confirm when you get the chance. Mumun 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I rerated a couple of those as stubs, since they had fewer than 3 full paragraphs. I think we should be fairly strict that articles don't reach level C ("start") until they are of plausible length and cite at least one reliable source... although I notice "less than three paragraphs" is no longer part of the official definition of a stub, so perhaps we should reconsider the line between classes E and D. Our assessment scheme is still in its infancy, so any feedback is welcome. -- Visviva 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! I agree with what you've done. We should be strict. Indeed, I really didn't provide any reason for why I assessed the way that I did. You seem to read my mind though -- most articles need expansion and need to properly reference the site excavation reports! I'll try to address these issues before year's end if possible.

Regarding the Gyeongju Basin article, I found that citation:

Kang, Bong W. 2006. Large-scale Reservoir Construction and Political Centralization: A Case Study from Ancient Korea. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(2):193-?.

I couldn't locate this article online, and so I found an abstract and the above reference on Proquest. Unfortunately, the Proquest resource doesn't seem to indicate on which page the article finishes, and the table of contents for the issue seems to have a problem with pagination. Haven't been able to see the library copy yet. It will be good to keep the other conference paper as a link.

It would be good to at least look more closely at the issue of how we define D and E articles as per the reasons you mention. Mumun 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Icon set

Hi all,

I've created a standard set of navigational icons, see Template:Korea icons. Hopefully this will help in the process of creating a structure here that is clear, robust & inviting. The advantage of putting this all in one template is that when we want to change one icon for another, we only need to edit that single template. You can see the current icon set in use in various places, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups. The working group icons are less than ideal, but were the best I could come up with; if anyone has some good free PNGs or GIFs of iconic Coreana, please upload them.

I also created Template:Korea sidebar as a compact version of /Navigation, but am not happy with the look. If you can make it better, please do. Happiness -- Visviva 07:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlist

Hi folks,

I've stubbed out a little thing I call the redlist. The idea of this is to be as comprehensive as possible a list of encyclopedic Korea-related topics for which we do not yet have articles. This will hopefully get around the problems of both the to-do list (space constraints) and the old "complete to-do list" (too many different kinds of tasks, no topical breakdown). We'll see...

The list is broken down by working group, with a section (currently empty!) for uncreated articles without an associated working group. The section for each working group is actually housed at "(group name)/Redlist", and transcluded to the main list. For example, the DPRK redlist is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/DPRK/Redlist. Each sublist should probably also be transcluded to the working-group page. Note that the Military history WG's situation is a little different, due to the need for cross-compatibility with the military history project.

Please feel free to add everything you can think of to these lists. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats awesome! Will this be a replacement for the todo list on the wikiproject right now? Its very practical to categorize the missing and attention-needing articles. Good friend100 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean G-7

There's a brand new editor at work on Korean G-7: it came to my attention when s/he incorrectly added it to WP:FA. Can anyone here help orient the new editor and tidy up the article, including adding categories? I tried to do some cleanup, but the content is out of my territory. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see if I can help. Good friend100 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, friend. Also, the image appears to be a copyvio, incorrectly loaded up to Commons - can you follow the links there and doublecheck on the Korean website it appears to have been taken from? Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean Unification Flag

Since both South Korea and North Korea agreed to include Dokdo on the Unification Flag, could someone upload the updated flag? Thank you! --DandanxD 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we know what it will actually look like yet? -- Visviva 13:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has a slightly better picture of the new flag, still dokdo is barly, but at least, visible. [1] — Luccas 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

South Korean won (old)

I took upon myself to create a separate article for the South Korean won used between 1945 and 1953. And I've edited {{Template:Historical currencies of Korea}} accordingly so that it doesn't link twice to South Korean won. I also took the liberty of raising the assessment rating of South Korean won from B to A, since alot of work has been put on it recently.

I haven't been a wikipedian for long so I'd like if someone else could review South Korean won, as I think it may have attained Good Article status by now. I just don't feel comfortable nominating an article after I've done some major contributions to it. — Luccas 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the article and you did a great job on it. Could there be more information on the history part? Or is the section short because of the only 50 year old Korean bank? Apart from that, I think it is excellent enough for "Good article" Good friend100 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help User: Kingj123

The recent photo of HSR-350x has been deleted, or will be deleted due to the copy right violation. Can Anybody can take a private photo of HSR-350x and upload in Wikipedia? The Korean G-7 needs an image for HSR-350x.

Please come into my talk page if you are interested. --Kingj123 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Statues: Emailing KRRI for permission... yet no returns.

Hey, I looked over the article. If no one else uploads a personal image, we will have to wait until next summer because next summer I will be going to Korea and get everything that you could get on all the Korean articles. I am very hopeful but also sad at the fact I have to wait like 9 more months. -_- Good friend100 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to left written korean?

The first hwan printed in 1953 by the US Government Printing Office all have their horizontal hangul and hanja incriptions written right to left (as seen here Image:100 hwan 021753 obverse.jpg). We all know korean is written left to right (western way) and pre-20th century text were written verticaly top to bottom, right to left (chinese way). But has anyone ever seen another example of korean written right to left, or could this be a mistake from the Printing Office? All following notes printed by KOMSEP, including the ones issued just 1 month after the american printed ones are all written left to right. — Luccas 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just worked on translating a part of the text at [2] and it says (if I translated right) that the reason the terms "won" and "원" are inscribed on the hwan notes is because of the quick need for new notes, the change in currency, and commissioning a foreign corporation to print the notes. These propably are the same reasons why the writing are reversed. See South Korean hwan/References for the text and translation. — Luccas 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

As many of you members have noticed, talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute shows another case of sock puppetry of users who had much potentials for contributing to Wikipedia.

Many productive users such as Appleby, Room218, Korealist, etc. have all been banned because of their misconducts. I don't like it at all, and it makes Koreans look bad whenever somebody associated with Korea get caught for honor violations. (Wikimachine 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Goryeo-Khitan Wars

The article is really confusing and hard to follow, I'd appreciate it if somebody would stop by and try to sort it out. --AW 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the user Opp2 at the Dokdo article.

This guy is using a bit of edivence to advocate a Japanese POV. However, he does seem to be a bit logical, so could some guys help with the discussion going on at the Dokdo talk page? I've got my finals coming up, and can't give up too much time. Thanks. .--General Tiger December 11, 2006, 11:50 (UTC)

I respect the need to maintain an informed debate at that article... however, please note that this talk page should *not* be used to marshal support for editing conflicts or debates. I'm not saying that's what you're doing -- this seems more like a request for comment -- but please do keep in mind. To be successsful, this project must welcome people from all points of view. Cheers, -- Visviva 13:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I've seen his edits and he has called a Korean professor "stupid Korean" which implies that he doesn't like Korea and basically Dokdo. I have been considering admin request but it isn't really neccessary right? Good friend100 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, I don't watch that discussion very closely. If there is uncivil or disruptive behavior going on, then the editor should be warned, and a report should perhaps be filed with WP:AN/I... I'll leave that to your capable judgment, though. -- Visviva 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the guy's words were a bit harsh, but he is advocating a bit solid argument. I've already told him to stop his harsh remarks..--General Tiger

Second opinion

Could someone kindly drop by Korean Mountaineering League, and evaluate whether or not it meets the inclusion criteria for organizations? See the talk page for details on why I doubt both its notability and my own judgment, and please direct any responses there. Thanks! -- Visviva 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article basically ignores domestic Korean environmental efforts that have the same goal, and the bit at the end about "trash strewn mountains" is a bit much. The tone has the potential to appear disrespectful. I think your concerns on the talk page are valid. I recently dealt with a fellow who was embittered toward Changwon and acted out by erasing complimentary text and adding inflamatory text on the Changwon article about "trash strewn waterways", etc. Mumun 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-entry

I suggest a Korean flag on the WP:KO opening page. As for the Korean military, we will need some help. An organizational structure of ancient and modern ROK forces will be helpful. Who is the founder of Wikiproject Korea? Oyo321 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which Korean flag, a South Korean flag is biased because it won't represent North Korea (not that North Korea would even care). Good friend100 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Great Korean flag is not a source of bias. Considering an imminent reunification after the wretched dog, Kim Jong Il, the Korean flag will probably continue in use. If it is truly a problem, then I suggest an insertion of both ROK and NPRK flags. The unification flag is a choice as well. Oyo321 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, what does this Great Korean flag look like, and what is its history? When I search for Flag of Korea, all I get are the North & South Korean flags, and the unification flag. LordAmeth 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-entry

I also suggest a new section honoring Korean participation and success in international competitions such as the Olympics, World Cup, Asian Games (most recently Doha), and WCG. Thank you. Oyo321 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What! This is ridiculous!

Is there a Salsu Daecheop article when Eulji Mundeok defeated the Chinese with his dam? This is an important event in Koren history and there isn't an article on it. Good friend100 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Battle of Salsu what you are looking for? --Kusunose

An update to Template:Korean & assessments

Hi all,

{{Korean}} now uses the quality as the sortkey when it categorizes by priority and by group, and the priority as the sortkey when it categorizes by quality. I just implemented this, so it will take a few hours/days to propagate.

See for example Category:Start-class Korea-related articles; in a short time, everything there should be sorted under the numbers 1,2,3,4, and 5. It's not a perfect solution, but this should address most of the issues previously raised by [name removed]'s presumed sockpuppet #532.* ;-) Cheers, -- Visviva 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

* No, I'm not actually keeping count. >:-(

Korean companies at AfD

Please see the discussion about Hansung Machinery Co., a Korean company, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea. Some of the other articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mirmo%21 might also benefit from review by additional editors. If you can improve any of these articles, please do so. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo-Sui Wars or Goguryeo-China Wars ?

Full discussion in Talk:Goguryeo-China wars.

Yug has renamed Goguryeo-Sui Wars to Goguryeo-China Wars, because he wants to include later Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, which I think is really a separate war. It doesn't make sense, because if you call it Goguryeo-China Wars, the article should include all wars between Goguryeo and China, including the wars against the Four Han Colonies, all the way through Goguryeo's fall. The article as-is, is not about that, it's really about the war between Goguryeo and the Sui Dynasty, which itself is a major, specific topic that should have its own article. If he wants to create another article on the Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, that's fine, but don't hijack an existing article on a different topic. Please see and say what you think about it. Thank you. OpieNn 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I seen It. I suspect Pro-korean position but that also may be an user with more knowledge than me. Please go to the main talk page. Every opinion are welcome. Yug (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance ratings

A number of themes (e.g., rails, Germany) have worked on rating the importance of topics. I think we could do this for Korean topics. To help us, I have reworded a form used for rails and Germany. Please fill in examples and make any changes you feel are needed. There is a difference in what is considered a city in Korea and in Germany. Thus, Nonsan in Korea is considered almost a village and (other than its role as home of a training camp for draftees and its role in Paekje history) negligible whereas a city of comparable size (about 130,000) in Germany would be classed at least at mid. So maybe the community criteria should be changed.

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
Top	The article is one of the core topics concerning Korea. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Korea topics}}	A reader who does not have a personal or professional connection with Korea will none-the-less have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Communities: large and internationally famous cities such as Seoul as well as smaller communities of international fame.	Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages.	Korea
High	The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history, social, cultural, religious, or economic aspects of Korea.	Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed.	These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about Korea and the more significant historical events in and concerning Korea. Articles about the most basic topics concerning Korea, its history and geography, like mountain ranges, rivers, states, and the most historically and culturally significant topics are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail. Communities: Towns with a population of over 100,000 not qualifying for a higher rating.	Korean War?
Mid	The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history, social, cultural, religious, or economic aspects of Korea.	Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject.	Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Korea, its history and culture. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Communities: most towns of any real significance that do not qualify at a higher level (default).	Taejeon ? (or should it be higher, as it would be for Germany?). Buyo
Low	The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Korea or Korea history.	Few readers not specifically concerned with Korea or Korean affairs or who are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article.	Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Korea, using technical or local terms (and defining or explaining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most subway and local railway stations, short line railroad companies, small rivers, almost all individual mountains and other items that otherwise have no significant impact on Korea as a whole or its reputation. Communities: most suburbs, dormitory towns, villages and other settlements of purely local significance.	Korean swords

Please feel free to edit and improve Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Importance. But I would strongly disagree that a second-level subdivision such as Nonsan can be described as a "village," and in fact have been in the habit of rating all such divisions (North and South) as "medium." -- Visviva 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to re-invent the wheel. (My comment on Nonsan was just a reflection of what Koreans here in Nonsan tell me. If consensus is that it should be medium, I am more than amenable to that rating.) Kdammers 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was born in Waegwan

Anyone else born in Waegwan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.149.220.161 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I worked there for a year. Does that count? ;-) -- Visviva 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

korean translations workgroup?

Is there one like Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation and Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Translation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year everyone! We've made much progress since the project's formation a few months ago! Good friend100 made a lot of efforts to create this WikiProject, and don't forget the Korean Portal made by Visviva. The project now contains 36 members! (I thought there were less b/c not all people put the userbox in their user page). Good luck! (Wikimachine 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Happy new year to you too and everyone else in Wikipedia. Good luck on accomplishing your new year's resolutions. =) Good friend100 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Todo list

I happened to check on WikiProject Japan's todo list & our WikiProject's todo list seemed like a carelessly designed inferior product.

I made use of the todo list for the Korea Portal & it is way too long.

Just like WikiProject Japan's todo list, I think that we need to give links instead of showing the requests for new, improve, etc... (Wikimachine 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

That seems wise; I agree the time has come for some general reorganization & house-cleaning. -- Visviva 08:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not categorize the todo list in each of the working groups so editors can focus on what they like best? I like your suggestions too. Good friend100 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's get on it! (Wikimachine 16:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

HSR350x image

A discussion about copyright infringement on the drawing of the HSR-350x ([image here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HSR350x.JPG]) is going on at Robth's discussion page. Could you guys take a look at it. Thanks. (Wikimachine 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Work

I am stunned that as a whole, Wikipedia has no article on Chosun Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. This is a ship manufacturing company of Korea. It currently is the leader in manufacturing ships in the world. I have started on the article. Oyo321 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it. (Wikimachine 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

It's here: Chosun Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.. Special:Prefixindex is a wonderful thing... :-) -- Visviva 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yi Ui-Bang

Hi, I recently wrote the Yi Ui-Bang article, and I would appreciate it if someone looked over and revised it and assist me in finding more sources to add to the article. Thanks. Darkstyx 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Colonial governors by year

Hello all. I am working on filling in the "state leaders by year" and "colonial governors by year" lists.. my question is this: How should I represent Korea as a Japanese colony? "Chōsen" is the term used by Japan at the time, but it's also more or less just the Japanese word for Korea. So, Chōsen or Korea? Thank you. LordAmeth 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say Korea, since Korea under Japanese rule calls it Korea and not Chōsen... and because it's on the English wikipedia, not Japanese. Oncamera 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and anyways, although many Koreans under Japanese rule called themselves "Chosun" the Chosun Dynasty already ended in 1910. Good friend100 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

adjust Korean History box?

A very belated Happy New Year to everyone...I noticed that the History of Japan box includes Jomon, a prehistoric period. I wonder if the Korean History box that appears down the right side of many articles could be adjusted to include Prehistoric Korea? --Mumun 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a sensible adjustment. -- Visviva 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Propsed deletions on the list

I want to let everyone know that the Dave's ESL Cafe article has been tagged for deletion. It has just been tagged with a proposed deletion tag; it doesn't seem that it will go through with a formal AfD process. Thoughts are welcome on the article's talk page. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy on grading articles

How about this: If another WikiProject already has an article graded, WikiProject Korea should not separately give a grade to the article.

For many reasons:

Courtesy: we must respect others' viewpoints. Grading a B-article as start quality or unstable would be seen as an insult (It's like, we have much higher expectations of articles than other projects).
Time: there are so many articles not graded. Why have an article graded twice?
Controversy: I could see a lot go on if WikiProject Japan graded the article Dokdo or Korea-Japan disputes as "worst" (etc.) while WikiProject Korea gave A-class quality to those articles. People would definitely think, "Hmm, there must be a lot of KPOV in there - that's why WikiProject Korea grade them so highly." (Wikimachine 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Im Gyeong Eop

Can anyone take a look at my article and revise it if needed? Thank you. Darkstyx 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo issues here

Hi everyone, I'd like to bring Dokdo article to your attention.

Right now, the article is going under a time of crisis - attacked by two complete JPOV Wikipedia newbies who don't know a single thing about the rules (i.e. burden of proof is on the person who brings the argument & WP:NOR) at two angles - the introductory paragraph's POVness and the name of the article.

As all of you veterans remember, the changing the name of the article from Liancourt Rock to Dokdo was a very slow, painful, and consuming process. Well guys, we're not going to go through that again. But, the article needs support from the rest of the community to clarify that there is general consensus on the title of the article as in status quo.

The article has been maintaining its shape, thanks to me, but I seem to have lost my "authority" to the newbies after having debated and argued them for so long. What we really need is a group of users who understand the situation fully & have been editing in Wikipedia for a long time & voice their opinions.

I think that might shut the newbies up. Or if they're persistent, even against the community's consensus (yet to be revealed), just revert their edits & ban them for WP:3RR. If you think I sound cruel, that's completely not the case. Actually read the discussion. This guy called Opp2 has been so persistent - I've been arguing w him from early December. For nearly one and half months! That's about 50 days. Already, a single archive has been made just for that user's jabbering. A lot of my time, concentration, and will to edit have been completely consumed and decimated by that little guy!

Yes, I want to bring end to this. Any time something like this happens, the community needs to return in a mobilized form, as it has done before in previous conflicts, show general consensus, and bring peace to the world. (Wikimachine 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I dunno about Opp2. Like Visviva once said, this place is not a place where you come for massive support. I know you are not, you are just trying to end the argument and stabilize the article, but instead of arguing with Opp2, why not just completely ignore him? We already know that he is repeating things and he sounds like as if this is a court case (i mentioned this before). Good friend100 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'm supposed to ignore him... The situation is shaped so that if we don't continue arguing, Opp2 will continue to make his edits. And if I revert, there will be a revert war. And we're supposed to avoid revert wars. (Wikimachine 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Hi Everybody...my attentions are directed elsewhere these days, but I can see that Wikimachine is having a tough time over at Dokdo. From the talk page of the article, it looks as though a request for mediation was made yesterday. From my exposure to this debate outside of the Wiki-world, it appears to me as though the Korean case for Dokdo sovereignty is quite strong. As far as I know, the Korean international diplomatic case is pretty formidable, and I see no reason why the outcome of mediation in Wikipedia shouldn't reflect the Extra-wiki reality -- Korea has the upper hand in this. So if a mediator is chosen, I think we should look to that person to help sort things out, no?

I think mediation is one way that problems there could be solved -- likely in a way that reflects Korea's upper hand.

Finally, I might ask Wikimachine to tell us exactly where the heart of this dispute lies? I find it hard to sort out all the comments on the talk page going back in time. Sorry to be so lazy! ^^ -- Mumun 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns, here is a summary of all the debates going on.

Terra nullius- Did Japan take the Dokdo island under the name of "terra nullius" meaning that Japan is justified to take Dokdo because Dokdo was no man's land (controlled by no one). The reason why Opp2 claims that Japan did not take Dokdo under the name of "terra nullius", although many sites already state that the Japanese government did so among the facts as they are is because the another section talks about how this is controversial to Japan's actions of taking over British & French (did I remember that right?) islands (because Japan did not use "terra nullius" to justify those islands' takeover & actually notified the foreign ambassies about the issues.) And definitely, being a complete JPOV editor, Opp2 would hate to see anything about Japan doing anything controversial & so he stepped up & argued a bunch about international laws, etc. without explaining them.
Name of the article. A user gave an example of a historian who refuses to use "Dokdo" as the title of the island & uses "Liancourt Rock" instead as a neutral term & then said that this single historian's usage of the term "Liancourt Rock" should mean that Wikipedia should also use "Liancourt Rock" as a neutral term.
Deletion of the dust I have no idea what's going on @ this debate... The original debate is archived at [3].
Intro I think that this is being settled w/ my edits. Two parts here. Opp2 didn't like how I changed his edits from "Japan & Korea disputes the Korean sovereignty of the island" to "Japan disputes the South Korean sovereignty of the island" because the latter makes S. Korean jurisdiction sound legitimate - which is the case. But Opp2 said that due to international law's object etc. whatever junk, without emphasizing the fact that Japan continues to dispute the S. Korea's control, Japanese protest becomes nullified or something... So he went on to talk about "international POV" which doesn't make any sense at all - therefore, I told him that, international laws are used in international courts, correct grammar & sense in style of writing is used in Wikipedia. Then, he said international laws are universal xxx (meaning that international law should be applied everywhere), and then criticized me of attacking the international law itself as POV by drawing parallel to HTML codes for the internet. (LOL) The second part is that there used to be parenthesis behind Takeshima like this: (first adopted in 1905 by the Japanese Ordinance of Incorporation). But, there was no parenthesized description for the title Dokdo, and Opp2 felt that the entire format for the introduction made Takeshima sound more illegitimate because the parenthesized description is making Takeshima seem as if it was fabricated by the Japanese government while Dokdo was always used in the Korean language.

That is all. (Wikimachine 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Hi Wikimachine et al.! Thanks for the list! I used your list to look at the article and the talk page and found it helpful. I know we are supposed to be brave and bold, but a few months ago I involved myself in an argument that was full-o-sockpuppets and since that time I have felt disillusioned about the goings-on in the Korea corner of this encyclopaedia. Also, I don't know if my attempts to mediate had a helpful effect. I am also struck by the fact that, since this encyclopaedia is wiki, and new users join all the time, the same arguments could be brought up again and again endlessly into the near future. So I am reticent to place these comments on the talk page of Dokdo right away. Meanwhile I have a few comments for now:

Terra nullius- Both sides seem to have gone too far into the topic. Too many issues within issues. In an encyclopaedic entry, we need to better summarize these issues so that we can present the bare bones of the argument on the article page. Perhaps the debate here could be better solved if both sides were to try and ask "what do encyclopaedia readers absolutely have to know about the terra nullus issue?" and then go from there. Once the bare bones of this argument are up in the article, we can then add necessary NPOV text from both sides.
Name of the article. No way. Indeed, calling the article the Liancourt Rocks would be just about one of the lamest ideas ever, forgive my forward talk.
Intro I think this part of the argument looks like it could be solved.

I hope to add more later...if any revert wars begin maybe it would be good to alert us here because I don't check Dokdo every day. 하루 잘 보내세요, 여러분-- Mumun 11:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention to be part in any article debate or to ever get involved in any. That's why I don't touch the content of Dokdo, or of any other articles with an outgoing edit war. But in term of naming articles about land mass, that they may be contested lands or not, they should simply be refered to by using the name given by the country currently occupying it. And currently, South Korea has troops posted on Dokdo and Japan doesn't. Wikipedia can't start naming it's article by the content of international laws, diversified historical references, or from which name is the most popular among it's users (and this one only leads to sockpuppetry), so a definite rule should be chosen upon. And as for Liancourt Rocks being a neutral name, there is no such thing as a neutral name. A name will always be biased toward whoever gave it, but in this case this name just happens to be of a source not involved in this debate.

So by this rule:

it's Dokdo, not Takeshima,

it's Tsushima, not Taemado.

And for any Japanese users who are not happy with using my personal naming convention for Dokdo, then: "Join the army and claim the land".

Luccas 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

the {{korean}} template seems to dominate, and already that covers for both the portal and WP:KO. So, why not delete the original template made by Good friend100? (Wikimachine 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, the new one is better =). Good friend100 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment for Jung Myung Seok

I'm concerned about a couple of editors, followers of this man, who seem to be convinced the other editors are just trying to defame Jung Myung Seok (talk) out of hate and therefore are refusing to work with us. I don't mind them editing, but one user in particular, Uptional, seems to be especially disruptive. He has now added a NPOV label to the article saying the other editors are biased (without giving specific examples of what needs to be fixed on the article), which I suspect is to discredit the article and draw attention to his POV which he put on the talk page. The user has also done many other disruptive things. So someone coming in and commenting would be appreciated (or helping build up the article). Literally followers of this man are taught that people who criticize him are "satans", so it's making it hard for followers and non-followers of Jung to work together because of this mindset, since the criticism (as well as negative facts) have to be added for completeness. There's also a bit of emotion flying around on both sides, as obviously all editors are very passionate about the issue. Thanks, RB972 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Socotra Rock

As an island claimed by the Republic of Korea, I propose that Wikiproject:Korea add this territorial dispute article to project:Korea. Darkstyx 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing wars in Koreans

There recently has been an editing war between various users in the article Koreans with regards to related ethnic groups and whehter or not the relatedness info box should remain. I would like to ask the Korean Wikipedia Project community to participate in building a consensus in these disputed matters as to provide a resolution. The article also needs a lot of work up. Any participation would be appreciated. Cydevil 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Im checking it out right now. (Seong0980 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Question about pages I can add this tag to

Can I add this project tag to pages about South Korean films I create pages for ? --Jackaranga 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could/should add it to the talk pages, since The King and the Clown does. on camera^(t) 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks :-) --Jackaranga 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations of South Korea

I just created a new template for Foreign relations of South Korea

. Please help to improve it and place it in related articles. Articles on South Korea-Russia relations and North Korea-South Korea relations need to be created. OpieNn 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job with the template! I found out that the Korea-Russia relations article is considered for deletion. Good friend100 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

이름 template

(Read this if you can understand Korean.)

제 생각에는 {{Ko-h}}, {{Ko-hh}}, {{Ko-hhrm}}, {{Ko-hrm}} 그리고 {{Ko-chmr}} 혹은 {{Nihongo}} 비슷한 template들이 {{Koreanname}} 을 대체해야 합니다.

중국 관련 문서들(예를 들어 Confucius, China.)은 물론 일본 관련 문서들(예를 들어 Japan, Anime.)도 이름상자를 버리고 문서 안에서 원어이름을 표기하고 있습니다. 하물며, 어떤 사물 혹은 사람이, 여러 언어의 이름을 가지지 않은 이상(Baekdu Mountain, Ten thousand years, Tofu.), {{Koreanname}} 의 사용은 무의미합니다. 또, 보기에도 안 좋습니다.--JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 10:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a translation, if someone wouldn't mind. If we are to discuss the benefits and faults of templates, Project policy, or other policies, it would be good if all could participate. LordAmeth 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Instead of using infoboxes to write down the Hangul et al. versions of names, they should be written inline in the text itself using the templates listed above, similarly to what is done in the Japanese and Chinese pages. Chungyc 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a long "sentence" to list the hangul, hanja, and the two different methods of romanization (while distinguishing which is which)? And how needlessly long would it take to go through every article which has the template and change it? on camera^(t) 02:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Thank you for the summary. God, Babelfish is awful. I agree with Oncamera. This is a problem not only for Korean articles, with the two forms of romanization and the two writing systems (hangul and hanja), but also even moreso for articles whose subjects have different names in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, or even other languages like Okinawan. Explaining all of that out (even just the Korean) in-line in the article takes up too much space and doesn't look nice. I'm all for the infobox as we have it now - might be better if it can be modified to be more inclusive of other languages as well. Or, as an alternate solution, sometimes I simply push a lot of the linguistic information down to the footnotes. LordAmeth 10:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the infoboxes. If you want to know how the name is written in hangul and hanja, it's all there in a consistent and well-organized way; on the other hand, most of the readers won't know any Korean, so it's good to have all of the different versions of every name out of the way so it doesn't break up the text. It would be a reasonable option to give Korean names in the text, with hangul only; for names that are only mentioned, and don't have their own articles with infoboxes, that's fine. But I would not want to get rid of the current infoboxes. --Reuben 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the infoboxes, too. I think that inserting the Korean or Sino-Korean text into the article copy would inhibit the flow of articles. It might be good to think about the readers who have no exposure at all to Korean and have no MS IME installed in their PCs. Mumun 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Showdown! which is looks Better

A Korean personal name consists of a family name followed by a given name. Both of these are usually composed of hanja, which are Chinese characters in Korean pronunciation. Hanja are no longer used officially in North Korea, and their use in given names is restricted to 5,038 characters in South Korea.

A replacement idea

A Korean personal name (Korean: 이름 / 성명; Hanja: 이름 / 姓名; RR: ireum /seongmyeong; MR: irŭm / sŏngmyŏng) consists of a family name followed by a given name. Both of these are usually composed of hanja, which are Chinese characters in Korean pronunciation. Hanja are no longer used officially in North Korea, and their use in given names is restricted to 5,038 characters in South Korea.

--JSH-alive ^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I continue to like the infobox much better. In-line language elements really clog things up and look unattractive, and this becomes even more of a problem when other languages are added. For some topics, it's relevant to include up to three or four or even more languages... it would be great if they could all be seen in an infobox over to the side. I know I've seen a few articles which have Chinese, Korean, and Japanese in one infobox... does anyone know the name for the template? LordAmeth 16:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LordAmeth for the same points on the info box. And I think editors make the table themselves if there's more than one language... but I'm not sure. on camera^(t) 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Korean castles

I see very little anywhere on Wikipedia describing Korean castles or fortresses, as a stylistic whole, or individually. Certainly they existed, and certainly many are still extant, no? Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles has recently come into existence, and could use the help of experts on Korea to expand Wikipedia's coverage of castles and fortresses around the world. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. There are many fortresses in Korea. We need more on these impressive and historical features, e.g. 왜성. Many of the Korean examples are not so much like classic European castles, though. Most consist of walls or remains of walls that snake around the tops of mountain ridges and most have few architectural features inside, e.g. castle keep, etc. --Mumun 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with Korea Under Japanese Rule

An Editor deleted all of the Edits on War Crimes and Cover-up efforts of Imperial Japan. Also I can't get the 1910 Arguments and interp Title to show it's there but it does not show up in the Sandbox or on the Actual Article. Assistance would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia documentary

These guys are travelling around Asia filming a documentary about Wikipedia.. I spent today with them and they're really cool, if anybody has time tomorrow (Monday 19 Feb) and would be interested in meeting up with them and chatting about Wikipedia, please contact them immediately, as below. Nice one...

What's up? My name is Nic Hill and I'm directing a documentary film about Wikipedia. I am following Jimmy Wales around the world and documenting the movement. I'll be in Seoul from feb 17th to feb 19th. if you would be interested in meeting up when we come to town or if you know any Korean Wikipedians who might be interested please get in touch. So far we have filmed at Wikimania 2006, Tokyo, and Hong Kong.

Please take a look at our movie trailer... http://www.underdogpictures.com/wikidoc/wikienter.htm

Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you are interested in being a part of this documentary film.

-Nic Hill director [email protected]

Deiz talk 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwanghwamun

Hey everyone, I started an article on Gwanghwamun. I was surprised that none existed. Anywho, feel free to improve it.Bethereds 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Korea redirect

WP:KOREA redirects to the project page, while WP:Korea redirects to the notice board. Is anyone regularly using the latter? It's used in less than ten pages and it's easy confuse the two redirects, so I think WP:Korea should be deleted or redirected to the project page instead. YooChung 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

v t e Foreign relations of South Korea
Africa	Egypt Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Libya Nigeria Somalia South Africa Tanzania
Americas	Argentina Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Cuba Mexico Panama Paraguay Peru United States Uruguay Venezuela
Asia	Afghanistan Bangladesh Brunei China History India Indonesia Iran Israel Japan History Joint Development Zone Kazakhstan Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal North Korea Pakistan Palestine Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Taiwan Thailand Turkey Uzbekistan Vietnam
Europe	Austria Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark France Germany Greece Holy See Hungary Iceland Italy Netherlands Poland Russia Serbia Spain Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom
Oceania	Australia Fiji New Zealand
Multilateral relations	Africa European Union Inter-Korean Liaison Office Inter-Korean summits 2000 2007 April 2018 May 2018 September 2018 Latin America Six-party talks United Nations 2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit
Ambassadors Diplomatic missions of / in South Korea International presidential trips Ministry of Foreign Affairs Politics of South Korea