Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Reversing the eradication of the relationships section on Korean artists' pages

Edit: People are not reading what I have written and do not understand my point before voting. I'm not saying to add or remove every dating info, I'm saying we should discuss it page by page, and not have a general rule like discussion 1 dictating that we should delete everything when someone breaks up, significant or not. If you did not know, I'm the one that re-added Sulli's relationship info which was previously deleted because of discussion 1 even though it was significant because the couple was cyber bullied. That is why I say we discuss it per page and not have general rule like discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago, there was an edit war on Kim Hee-chul revolving around the Relationships section and we started a discussion about whether to remove it or not. However, while discussing with the other editors, I came to the realization that the Korean artists' articles' editors hold different views on the matter and enforce removal of verifiable and well-sourced information from WP:BLP because they subjectively deem them insignificant or allegedly "harmful" and "sensitive information" (against WP:CENSOR) as can be seen here Here. Also, for years I have been told that when Korean artists' breakup the info of them dating should be deleted, and now I discovered that all that was decided against Wikipedia guidelines without any proper discussion and a consensus as seen here discussion 1 and discussion 2, and many of pages lost the Relationships section because a couple of editors thought they are not necessary even thought they are usually well-cited.

I raised the issue here but an admin, Guy, closed it and told me here that: "Per existing policy and guidance, you can add a relationship that's reliably sourced, remove only if you think it's not reliably sourced, and if anyone challenges a specific addition then you discuss it on the Talk page. Facts supported by reliable sources can be added, but if they are challenged by another editor it's your job to achieve consensus for inclusion."

Dating news (dating or breakup) that are well covered and are confirmed news by both parties/agencies do not fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:FAN. Dating news should be Neutral point of views, Verifiable under Korean reliable sources, and not an original research, so the points raised in discussion 1 and discussion 2 are against Wikipedia's already "existing policy and guidance" in WP:BLP. Dating news should not be deleted from the Relationships sections when it is well sourced with even international news outlets covering it by using discussion 1 as an excuse or saying all dating news are inherently insignificant. They keeps saying that any thing that doesn't contribute to the person's career should be removed, so should we also delete the birthplace, birth year, mention of family members, and education and Uni's major (if it is not acting/singing/etc.)? Please be consistent.

Relationships section can be seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist (Park Shin-hye, Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, Shin Min-a, and Kim Woo-bin, etc) or western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc). There should be a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. As the admin said, there should not be a Korean-artist-wide rule that states that sections should be deleted when a person breaks up and it should be a page-by-page consensus. Personally, I think it should either be that, or the relationships section should be totally eradication even from western artists' pages or totally allowed (with dating and breakup info) on all pages included Korean artists' pages, as we can't objectively judge if the dating news is significant or not, or the duration of the artists' relationship before the relationship is deemed long term and allowed on the page (1 year, 2 years, etc), or how famous should they be to deem the relationship significant.

To conclude, my main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 suggesting that all dating news are inherently insignificant and WP:FAN if artist break up and should be removed, which is being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I wish for issues of inclusion and deletion to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Format your comment to contain "Keep" the Korean-artists-wide rule reached on discussion 1 and discussion 2 about the eradication of the relationships section upon break up or "Reverse" the eradication of the relationships section upon break up, and include a rationale for your choice and please use guidelines and don't give me nonsense subjective non-Wikipedia useful reasons such as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo” since that is WP:CENSOR. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not supporting this as a censoring or not. Rather, for 99% of all dating news ... it is trivial and not notable. It becomes a news event and then nothing happens. They move on, they break up, it's transient news. It adds nothing to their career. WP:ONUS says that not all verifiable information needs to be included. Adding one sentence that "X is announced to be dating Y" and nothing beyond that is a trivial mention and really adds no context. I'm not against mentioning specific relationships when there are other influences to their notability beyond that - esp in regards to Korean news media. But as a whole, specific current relationships aren't necessary just as we don't list all previous relationships. Evaders99 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "just as we don't list all previous relationships." Who said that we can't add info if they break up? That is the issue I'm talking about, people use it as an excuse to include info. There is no proper consensus to remove info if artist break up. Actually, the main consensus on Wikipedia is to allow it if it is reliably sourced as seen western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc), even Good articles, that have been looked at my multiple editors, allowed it. The current main consensus on Wikipedia which is stronger than a few editors consensus in here. Only Korean article editors make up their own rules, without proper discussions and try to enforce them on all pages. Your are the ones that need consensus to remove dating info about Korean artists break up in page-by-page discussion, as the removal goes against Wikipedia guidelines, not others who need to make dissuasion every time you remove it for no reason even though it is allowed throughout Wikipedia. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about... heck, a lot of their notability is who they are in relationship to their ex's ("Beniffer", "Brangelina", etc). Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with. In every example you link, the Korean artist has one line. The Western artist has two or more paragraphs on their relationships. No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here. Plenty of additions to Korean artists are press releases and don't really go into the why it matters. Context matters. For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either? Evaders99 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about..." See Brad Pitt (a featured article by the way), him dating Robin Givens, Jill Schoelen, and Juliette Lewis is mentioned all in 1 sentence. That is not "significantly more to write about". "Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with." Subjective. Lots of extremely famous Korean actors date other extremely famous Korean actors, but the info is removed, even though other find it significant as the couple are famous worldwide, but their opinion is rejected because of the ingrained believe that there is a consensus that sates that dating info should be removed while there is not. "No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here." It might for Kim Hee-chul and Kang Daniel, but it is not the case on other articles when the info is removed immediately following the break up without a page-by-page discussion because of discussion 1. "For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either?" That is a different issue, we are not speaking about adding random info about non-celebrity. If an actor dates them, their name, if available, is mentioned as it is relevant to the actor's news of dating them (Since ####, XX actor has been dating non-celebrity YY), of course only if it can be reliably sourced. WP:NPF is not applied here as the non-celebrity is only mentioned at most once or twice because of the person of interest's page, we are not writing paragraphs about them. Also, aren't non-celebrity always mentioned when a celebrity marries them? Based on your logic, shouldn't WP:NPF imply to them too? But I really don't care about that, my issue is mega-famous Korean celebrities having their dating info removed for no reason except discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is this nonsense? On Wikipedia, that which can be reliably sourced, can be included. If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion. Nothing needs to change: that is how Wikipedia already works. Guy (help!) 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, It is already being debated and no consensus is being reached. I think people are looking for more guidance project-wide, otherwise this fight just spills into every single page. (Also people use WP:OSE as a argument again and again) Evaders99 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This also makes not much sense to me. If the aim is to get editors interested in Korean artists to conform to wikipedia standards then for sure, they should. We don't have one rule for one wikiproject and different ones for the rest of wikipedia. Wikiprojects, especially ones like this, are useful in helping provide guidance on what could be considered a reliable source and other information that may be hard to come across for editors unfamiliar with a topic, but they are still bound by the PAGs and general good editing practise. The trouble is the discussions linked above show no evidence of this, so I am not sure what the op is getting at.

As to the wider question on whether to include relationship updates I tend to agree with the consensus reached at the other pages. We don't need it unless it plays a significant role in the persons life. Significance is subjective; but things like marriage, kids, length of time, any major incidents etc should provide some evidence of significance. As such these should be done on a case-by-case basis and any blanket rules are just going to create more headaches than necessary. I would also be wary of reliable sources. Tabloids, or even more reputable publishers, that use celebrity gossip as clickbait should not be used anywhere on a BLP. Also having a reliable source is the minimum for inclusion, we also have to take into account due weight, not news, recentism and other factors. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn I amended the first post to be more clear. My main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I see excuses such as “It will be removed after the artists break up because of discussion 1, so why add it from the start?” They would remove the info even if it was significant relationship between very famous actors or years long relationship because they believe discussion 1 told them all info from all pages should be removed following break up. I wish for issues to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; shouldn't come as a surprise that this is my opinion, and this is the same opinion for western and eastern articles. Unless there's something particularly notable or significant about the relationship I see no real reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not mean it needs to be in an article. Alex (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - it really doesn't make any difference what the guidelines are here at WikiProject Korea about including dating relationships, like Guy stated — If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion.. So in my view, it's on a case by case basis for any article, and if consensus is achieved to add the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaidnoway I'm not talking about adding or deleting info from a specific page, what I'm talking about is reverse discussion 1 so it is not used as an excuse to remove things with no discussion page-by-page. Which means next time someone comes to delete dating info from an artist that recently broke up, has to open a new discussion on the artist's talk page instead of using discussion 1 as a reason with no discussion. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; actually this can be apply to all celebrity.i put concern here because of culture that korea having to be honest but i see from an earlier discussion, i become more strongly believe that dating info is not important enough to put in an encyclopedia. Is only daily news that not worth to be someone history that everyone need to know unless is having some big change happen to their life or carreer because their relationship. Lucia kwon (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; From what i see is right to delete it after they break up, and i even more agree if they not put a dating issue at all. Dating issue either they date or break up is not important to be listed without a very important reason that make it more significant event to be list. Lee Hayi (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; i don’t understand why we need to discuss about this again, the topic that decide before is actually what is best, we don’t need to delete if is have the significant event on their relationship. For example like what is listed on Sulli or Goo Hara article that even they has break up, they have a significant and notable event happen that important for people to know about. When it’s nothing then what should people know who they used to date with? If you compare with they biography such a birth date , place or education. That all is their important history where is being celebrate and can be people choice to go study, so of course that is important to be listed. Dating ? Break up ? In normal occasion what is so important about that so people need to know? I think is need to see case by case wether the relationship or the past relationship is worth enough to keep for people to know and why. Timing999 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Timing999 If you did not know, I'm the one that add Sulli's relationship info. They were previously deleted because of discussion 1 even though it was significant, just like you said, because the couple was cyber bullied. That is why I say we discuss it per page and not have general rule like discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94 that’s what a good one and i very agree and thank you to put it back and then put a reason and article that support how this event is so important for it. I think is same, is nice if we still keep the discussion 1 but we add more additional information about if there is significant and notable event for the break up to not delete it but help for more article that show how important this relationship for the person on the article regarding is positive or negative event. So rather to reverse is better to make additional exception to support that discussion for what is should delete or not.Timing999 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reverse: Agreed with what CherryPie94 and Guy stated. The general rule of eradicating all ex-relationship, despite its significancy, should be reversed; instead, the content should be removed on a case-by-case basis. From what I read with those chose "Keep", most pretty much agreed that significant ex-relationship should still be included. Heolkpop (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Yangsan_Tower

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Yangsan Tower to verify my hunch that this is a word-for-word translation (and thus a copyright violation) from https://www.yangsan.go.kr/yangsantower/contents.do?mId=0101000000. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

South Korean IMF (International Monetary Fund) in 1997

Can someone from the project look at the recent article South Korean IMF (International Monetary Fund) in 1997? It's in dire need of cleanup and seems to contain a lot of original research and NPOV issues. Also, the title really needs to be changed but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Women in Red - Draft:Im Seong-gu

Hi WikiProject Korea editors, Hope you're all well. I wondered if anyone had a chance to look over a draft I started as part of June's Pride theme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - the page is for an intersex person from the Joseon dynasty, some of which I google-translated from ko:임성구지 but then I found out more things! Here's the page: Draft:Im Seong-gu What I'd like to know is whether I've got the name of the person right? I saw a few different transliterations, which contradicted each other. Also Saganwon (사간원) is discussed in the article and I put The before it (so 'The Saganwon (사간원)') because it sounded like an organisation? Is that OK, or should 'the' be removed? Thank you for your help (Lajmmoore (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC))

Did you see the spelling Im Seong-gu anywhere? It would be good to have at least on English language source. Otherwise, it is probably best to use Im Seongguji for now. Except you found a good reason to omit the "-ji". Actually, I first thought it would be Imseong Gu-ji. But at one point in the Annals of Joseon Dynasty, he is just called Seongguji. The Saganwon should be correct. --Christian140 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, rather than 임성구지, 林性仇之 should be used in the article. The Annals of Joseon Dynasty where written in Chinese. E.g. on this site: http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kma_10311018_002#, you have the original on the right side, and the translation on the left side. The Korean alphabet wasn't even widely used until modern times. --Christian140 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This stub is a shame. But if someone doesn't understand what could be the meaning of 사간원, the odds are rather low that the same someone will understand what could be the meaning of a four lines extract from the Myeongjong sillok. Pldx1 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Korean chili peppers, and Introduction to Korea

A research paper was published in 2014 that disputes the popular idea that the Korean chili pepper was introduced to the country via foreign trade and that the first historical mentions of the pepper occur after the 15th century. The paper used DNA sequencing as evidence that there is no possibility of any foreign pepper of the same genus could have evolved into the genetically different Korean pepper in the amount of time needed to introduce the flavor to an entire county and integrate it into its cuisine in a way that even slightly resembles the historical records of kimchi and Korean chili powder. Furthermore, it points to older Korean historical documents that do document the presence, consumption, and popular use of Korean chili peppers, dating back to the first century.

Would this paper be enough of a verifiable reliable source to cite and introduce edits to the Korean chili pepper page?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319445357_DNA_Sequence_Analysis_Tells_the_Truth_of_The_Origin_Propagation_and_Evolution_of_Chili_Red_Pepper

2601:5CC:C500:1610:CD45:9DA1:B9C:C83A (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Korean mythology article needs a big overhaul

I've put up my suggestions on the talk page, so please do contribute if you have anything to contribute!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation request

Could somebody translate https://i.ibb.co/hcwb2Q2/122-1024x1024-8-Copy.jpg for me? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it again the United States Military and prostitution in South Korea article? I already wrote on the discussion page when someone requested for comments. I also think the sources cited in the English wikipedia are dubious, not on topic, and that the Korean ones seem more reliable. But since then, the discussion stopped and no one further edited it.

Anyways, the text is kinda confusing. I do not know for everything what the guy wants to express:

"This wikipedia information is an insult to all Koreans. It destroys dignity. Wikipedia information. One million Korean prostitutes. The women of 900.000 American soldiers. American Soldiers (Marriage). Chinese language and Korean language = Asian Yellow Race. Why are you doing this??? If you keep doing it, there is no choice!!! I hate the section about Korean women and American soldiers. I do not want to edit it!!!"

--Christian140 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Lists of islands

We have an article titled List of islands of South Korea, but it only lists 30 islands, although it does provide statistical data about the islands by province and the area of the 30 islands it lists. We have an article titled List of islands of Korea, which lists over 200 islands, all of which are part of South Korea. For islands of North Korea, the article refers readers to List of islands of North Korea.

Since both of these articles have content only about South Korean islands, wouldn't it be preferable to merge them? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please come participate

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks#Add (East sea). Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Category: Korean Mythology

Category:Korean mythology is very problematic, for much the same reasons that the Korean mythology article used to be. To wit:

• Arang (Korean folklore), Egg ghost, Myth of General Sinui: All legends, not mythology
• Bulgae: Not mythology in the academic sense of "Korean mythology," as it has no religious significance and might have been a not-really-believed-in tall tale anyways
• Chukjibeop: Not quite sure where to class this, but it's certainly not "Korean mythology" in the academic sense
• Dongti: Not mythology, a belief in Korean shamanism. Shamanic narratives do not use this term.
• Haneullim: Not worshipped in Korean shamanism, not referenced in the literary myths. Worshipped only by NRMs. This was a bit egregious so I've gone ahead and removed the category.
• Hwan-guk, Posterity of Heaven: A twentieth-century fabrication. Not mythology.
• Inmyeonjo: A Buddhist (Kalaviṅka or Taoist (Wansui bird) deity, only known in Korea in these two contexts.
• Kiringul, Mausoleum of Tangun: A newly emerging North Korean mythology, perhaps, but not Korean mythology in the usual sense.
• List of fictitious kings in Korean genealogies: Needs severe cleanup to make article match title. Also not mythology.
• The literary and shamanic myths are hopelessly mingled to the benefit of neither the readers nor the editors.

In my opinion, all the articles above should be removed from the category, and the category itself should be split into the subcategories of "Korean oral mythology" and "Korean literary mythology" where everything could be organized more neatly. Thoughts?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture could help. --Christian140 (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Jang Bogo-class submarine

Someone's moved Chang Bogo-class submarine to Jang Bogo-class submarine without discussion - could someone familiar with transliteration from Korean take a look? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: the hanja is romanised as Jang, however sources use both chang bogo and jang bogo, so I don't understand the moving editor's reasoning of "obvious errors". They also moved ROKS Jang Bogo (SS-061) for the same reason. Alex (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: Jang Bogo is better I think. In 2000, South Korea revised their Romanization. Until then, several versions of McCune-Reischauer were used. Apparently the class is from 1993. So, earlier sources would state Chang Bogo romanized, adhering to McCune-Reischauer. Newer sources then would use Jang Bogo as the South Korean government is using the so called revised romanization since 2000. --Christian140 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee and Christian140: - thanks both, very useful. I just get wary seeing these kinds of move without prior discussion as often there's some kind of political statement being made in the choice of spelling, and the Korean peninsula is not short of political opinions! But this one seems fine. Le Deluge (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC about the The King: Eternal Monarch

Currently there are two RFCs in The King: Eternal Monarch's page; RFC on the Second Paragraph of Lede and RFC on Reception section. Your opinion would be highly valued as you are familiar with Korea-related pages and k-dramas/TV series pages. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Run of new articles about Korean actors

Hi I’m a new page reviewer and I’d appreciate a steer from members of this project. Recently a whole run of articles about Korean actors was created by a new user, 59.103.96.130 and all the ones I’ve looked at have been assessed on the talk page by another new user, user:AkaneNel. This seems a slightly unusual pattern and as I’m not familiar with the Korean sources it would be helpful to have some editors from this project look at some if them and see if they meet notability guidelines. Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra I check the sources in some of the pages and they are good reliable sources. The pages are lacking and seem like lists now. Maybe ask the person who made them to add more info/text/paragraphs. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s great thanks very much. As long as the sources are decent the articles can be developed later by other editors. Thanks for your help! Mccapra (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ureme

I just wanted to drop a quick note - it looks like several of the Ureme films are up for deletion and could use sourcing. The main article also has issues, if someone can work on it. I'm not really as familiar with Korean sourcing and can only really search using Google translate, so it would be good if someone fluent could search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Asian art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Is ko:렛츠고 시간탐험대 a notable TV show?

I wonder if this is notable enough to be translated to English Wikipedia? The Korean wiki does not cite any sources and my ability to find sources in Korean is poor... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red Asian women contest

From 1 October to 31 December, Women in Red is running a virtual contest on Asian women. In November, this will coincide with Wikipedia Asian Month. We look forward to strong participation from all those interested in improving coverage of Korean women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Dongmyeong ilgi

Are the sources listed in the references section of this article reliable? It looks notable, but I don't want to remove the tag without some confirmation, and unfortunately I don't read Korean. Thanks for any guidance anyone can offer! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: The references are broadly reliable. The first reference is an annotated primary source published by an academic; the second is an editorial by a relevant academic; the third is from a highly credible tertiary source.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Karaeng Matoaya, Thank you! Very much appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon Haishen (2020) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Haishen (2020) to be moved to Typhoon Haishen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of man-made disasters in South Korea

I just posted this new article. It may or may not be worth keeping. I would appreciate interested editors to take a look at it. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating Wikidata WikiProject Korea

Currently there's no WikiProject on Wikidata that is dedicated to creating, improving and organizing all articles related to Korea.

It'd make sense to create it?

We could make the project work by improving the items there, and tag up the existing items.

We could also make working groups there as well.

Thanks in advance,--CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've created a WikiProject that focuses on the Entertainment of South Korea, all editors welcome to join the project:

Wikidata:WikiProject Korean Entertainment It's still in early stages, help from advanced editors are requested. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Request of help

I have seen conflicting information about the content descriptors used by the Game Rating and Administration Committee. Can anyone native Korean speakers help me by checking if their images, english label and descriptions are correct? --Trade (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Propose guidelines for Members section

Results as of November 18, 2020

This discussion is still ongoing

Support	Oppose
0	4

Greetings all WikiProject Korea's Wikipedian, I would like to propose a guidelines in regards to Members section in K-Pop groups/bands article. This is to ensure that there's consistency from article to article and also other languages Wikipedia within the K-Pop groups/bands article only. Do note that this is WikiProject Korea not WikiProject United Kingdom or WikiProject United States or WikiProject Europe so we shouldn't be referring to those articles within that scope.

Currently most K-Pop groups/bands in which the members doesn't have their own Wikipedia article, would have such format

Members section

• Member A
• Member B
• Member C
• ...
• ...

Whereas, K-Pop groups/bands where 1 or more member(s) have their own Wikipedia article, the members section wouldn't normally exists as they are already listed as link to their respective article inside the Template:Infobox musical artist.

Proposal

My proposal is that we should list out the basic information that you would normally find inside Template:Infobox musical artist, such as their Stage name (English/Romanized and Hangul), Birth name (English/Romanized, Hangul and Hanja), Date of Birth, Nationality, and their role within the group in table format. Below is 3 example:

Example 1 with Description (role) column

Stage name		Birth name			Date of Birth	Nationality	Description
Romanized	Hangul	Romanized	Hangul	Hanja
Member A	구성원 A	Kim ...	김 ...	金 ...	(2000-01-01) January 1, 2000	Korean	Vocalist, Dancer

Example 2 without Description (role) column

Stage name		Birth name			Date of Birth	Nationality
Romanized	Hangul	Romanized	Hangul	Hanja
Member A	구성원 A	Kim ...	김 ...	金 ...	(2000-01-01) January 1, 2000	Korean

Example 3 without Date of Birth, Nationality and Description (role) column

Stage name		Birth name
Romanized	Hangul	Romanized	Hangul	Hanja
Member A	구성원 A	Kim ...	김 ...	金 ...

Why change?

The reason of initiating the proposal is because:

1. members of newly-formed groups/bands wouldn't normally have their article created immediately, due to lack of content to expand beyond the Wikipedia:Lead section and Template:Infobox musical artist.
2. inconsistency with Korean Wikipedia article, take recently debuted girl group Aespa for instance. This is their English Wikipedia article and this is their Korean Wikipedia article.
3. table is easier to read and also cleaner in style.

Wasn't this discussed before?

Yes, it was discussed before back in 2017. However, there wasn't an conclusion reached and individuals just started changing everything to suit what they like. The discussion was there after automatically archived due to lack of discussion for 6 months.

What can we do this time?

What we can do this time is to ensure that there is such guidelines inside the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Article guidelines so to ensure consistency.

Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 04:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose all:I don't see the need for any tables at all, there's nothing wrong with a simple list of names. i also don't think inconsistency with foreign language articles is our concern, as i have seen many Korean articles which are packed full of irrelevant trivia and tidbits that our guidelines would not allow. Additionally, i don't see member tables being added for any other type of group on the English wikipedia, K-pop articles shouod not be an exception to this. Alex (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

By your logic then what is the point of having Template:Infobox musical artist? Of course, I know it's part of Wikipedia guidelines but who created the guidelines, it's created by us the Wikipedian. Having a simple list carries no meaning other than saying so and so is part of this group but what if other would like to learn more about them? I can simply say Charlie is part of group named Apple without saying what is their birth name, date of birth (how old are they), what is their role within the group (Rapper exclusively, vocalist, drummer, guitarist, etc). Which is why I propose a guideline to follow, and I like mentioned earlier, guidelines are created by us the Wikipedian. Not broken doesn't mean you shouldn't improve it. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 08:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, was that a genuine question? The infobox musical artist is used for the group, or the individual if it is an individuals article. How do you equate that to having a table to list members when a simple list like what we currently do is enough? The standard we have now is Name (hangul, positions if reliably sourced). Why do we need more? I just don't see that as an improvement. Alex (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that was genuine question. It's okay to oppose since this is discussions, there's bound to be mix reactions and I respect your decision. Fyi, the standard was not guidelines but just that everyone is "copying/taking references" what others (basically the one that started the "trend/style" first but I don't know who) is doing which is why you have this so-called "standard" that isn't defined anywhere seen on pretty much very Kpop-related articles. My proposal was to have something in similar concept to Infobox which is standardlize and actual standard instead. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 09:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Right off the bat, by employing flag icons, this proposal already violates WP:FLAGBIO. By adding excruciating detail, from a member's birth date and name, you're giving undue weight to information that is not intrinsically vital to the article about the group. It throws the article off balance per WP:BALASP. Member names, those names in Korean, and their positions are essential to the group, and a table is not needed to present that. ƏXPLICIT 11:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I have since made correction to the proposal to not violated WP:FLAGBIO. Reason on why use table instead of simple list is simply because of is cleaner and easier to read and understand as list would have brackets here and there. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 12:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Per what I said at Aespa's talk page. Members sections should, in my eyes, only be names and positions. Abdotorg (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Both Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Article guidelines should be shrinked, if not burnt and salted. Don't expand them! If you want to write something, then simply write it. Pldx1 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Erm ... this is not a joke right? I mean like both articles are not really that long and extensive and there's still plenty of rooms to add on. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think such pages are mostly hidden and few projects are active enough to go beyond a talk page here. Maybe such sections should be transcluded here, but I think the best idea would be to simply add categories to generic peer reviews, like AfD deletion categories, that people could monitor through article alerts and such if they care. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear User: Tom (LT). I think that nobody uses or even reads this page. Fell free to boldly play with it as much as you want. Pldx1 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

100% agree with both of you. @Piotrus: the change will (pleasingly!) achieve what you are requesting. If peer reviews are listed using the main peer review process (at WP:PR) they will appear on your article alerts for this project automatically. @Pldx1: based on what you've said I have boldly gone ahead and marked the page as inactive / historical with instructions to use the main peer review process instead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Is review of a TV series by Global Times reliable?

Hello fellow wikipedians from Wikiproject Korea; There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on the topic mentioned in the subject. Link here. As this is closely linked with Korea related topics, I invite all the wikipedians of this Wikiproject to share their opinion. Everyone's opinion will be highly valuable. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

In Local Route 32 (South Korea), there is a link to the DAB page Chungnyeolsa (tagged as {{disambiguation needed}} since June 2019). The Korean DAB page ko:충렬사 is fuller than the English one; but none of the entries on it seems to relate to Yuseong District or Daejeon. Expert help would be welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: the intersection mentioned there is named for a nearby shrine (Chungnyeolsa "Loyalty Shrine" is a pretty generic name for a shrine devoted to people who died for the country; there's dozens of notable & non-notable ones by the same name all over the place.) For now I dabbed it to an intentional redlink, Chungnyeolsa (Daejeon). . I'm not sure whether it's notable or not - offhand I couldn't find much information about it on the internet, just a couple of articles in local newspapers [1][2] which say it was set up in 1968 and enshrines the spirit tablets of Min Young-hwan, Choe Ik-hyeon, Yi Tjoune, An Jung-geun, and Yun Bong-gil. The shrine itself doesn't even get a label in Google Maps, though it does in Naver Maps [3]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good solution, thanks! That was my idea also, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. Narky Blert (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a hidden note by that redlink, linking to this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sunjong sillok with Gojong sillok

There is a discussion at Talk:Gojong sillok#Proposed merge of Sunjong sillok with Gojong sillok. Please participate in the discussion.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 APAN Music Awards advice needed

I've been working on a draft for the 2020 APAN Music Awards. Voting for certain categories took place on the Idol Champ app. I initially pulled the categories+noms from what I saw listed on the app+what was mentioned in news articles on Naver and thought that I had all the categories listed. Then select winners were announced on November 30. My problem is that I have no idea where some of the categories publicized on this date came from. Eg. the Male Solo (Global) cat was listed on the app for voting but the articles also include a cat titled 'Male solo' that is apparently a domestic category. Kang Daniel won both but idk if there were other nominees for this 'Male Solo' cat, if the noms for the global cat were the same ones used for this cat, or if this cat was announced and voted on elsewhere. Same applies to the (not global) Female Solo, Male Group and Female Group cats won by IU, BTS and Iz*one. The cats w similar titles on the app (which are the global cats) were won by Hwasa, Svntn and Blackpink so ik they're not the same award but I can't find any other polls on the app showing the former artists mentioned. Idk if there are additional nominees I need to locate+source or if only winners alone are all that was ever announced, so if anyone is familiar with this particular award ceremony or was following it since it was first announced 2 mths ago and knows what I don't, I'd appreciate any feedback on where I should look or what to do. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I think they're separate awards. There is Global and non-global one. Here is 2 sources [4] and [5]. The 1st article mentioned Kang Daniel won 3 awards of which is Male Solo, Global Male Solo. However, I'm not too sure where the voting took place on. – Paper9oll | Talk:Paper9oll 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: ik they're separate categories lol (I did link a ref with them). What I'm asking about is where I could find the nominees for them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Yea the domestic, I'm not too sure either. All news article points to Idol Champ app and fans website also point the voting there. My personal assumption is that either the domestic doesn't have fans vote or international fans can't vote for domestic category. Maybe can just publish without citing any sources for the domestic voting using citation needed template if nothing is found, shouldn't have any issues. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Romanization of names?

When refering to name pages, should they be based around how the name is romanized or how the name is spelled in hangul? Since Hangul names are often romanized in different ways, am I correct to assume that name pages would rely on the hangul to group names and include them on a page, regardless of the romanization? Jayb.rd98 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest starting here WP:NCKO - generally they are romanized based on how reliable English sources romanize them. Evaders99 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help with draft page

Hi, I need help with a draft for a K-Pop member which doesn't have a article for herself. All her member have one ber she doesn't. Can anyone check what's missing in my draft and tell me what to do since I'm fairly new to editing wikipedia? My draft is here Draft:Yeh Shuhua. I hope someone can guide me through. Thank you in advance. Justin03 (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You should read through WP:MUSICBIO and be able to show how she is individually notable with independent sources. Evaders99 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Are these awards consider notable?

• ATKP x IDOL CHAMP Awards
• KBS World Radio Year-End Survey
• TopStarNews Female Idol Awards
• Simply K-Pop ADIEU
• Simply Kpop Year-End Special
• TenAsia Top Ten Awards
• K-Champ Awards

Personally, I don't think they are consider notable. However, I wanted some advice as I'm currently editing List of awards and nominations received by GFriend. – Paper9oll | Talk:Paper9oll 09:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: the Simply Kpop ones are definitely not notable. If the KBS Survey one is the same one I'm thinking of that used to be in the BTS awards page a loong time ago before we revamped it, that is also not notable. I specifically remember Snowflake mentioning it. I'm not familiar with any of the others sorry. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Thanks for the reply, I have removed all except the Ten Asia. As I also don't think they are consider notable. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 10:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Are Melon Popularity Awards notable?

I have been seeing many "Melon Popularity Award" tables across numerous K-pop song articles and I am wondering if they are actually notable enough to be included. Wouldn't those awards fall under WP:SINGLEVENDOR? As compared to music show wins, I don't think they have nearly as much an impact in the K-pop industry anyways. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nkon21: I don't think they are notable and shouldn't be included in the awards and nominations table. Including them inside the relevant album/EP/single that won the award either above or below the music program awards table shouldn't have any issues if there are reference(s) provided. I removed from some awards and nominations table recently because there's no reference(s) provided and my research turn up nothing or they turn up as Melon Music Awards category with completely different nominee, my assumption is that they were included because of WP:CRUFT. And like you said, my opinion also the same, the awards doesn't have much impact ... pretty much like music program awards. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 05:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nkon21: iirc, Melon Popularity award wins are connected to year end MMA nominations. Songs/artists that win them have a higher chance of/end up being in the running for a particular award(s). I just can't remember whether it's a digital or popularity one though. They are notable and relevant, best suited in song articles as per usual practice, rather than in awards+noms list articles. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Standardization and expansion of given name pages?

I’m planning on spending a few days to bulk up the given name pages, and I was wondering if there is a decided standard formatting for the pages? Some pages use simple lists, such as the page Dong-suk while other pages use sections to separate the named individuals into occupation, such as the page Seung-hwan.

Is one format the standard? Which should I use while cleaning up and expanding on these pages? Jayb.rd98 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We are told that the official list encompasses 24 hanja with the reading "dong" and 20 hanja with the reading "seok". And, among all these $24\times 20=480$ possibilities, we have $20\%$ violinists and $40\%$ football players. This is a great help to understand the meaning of 동석 as a Korean given name. Moreover, https://koreanhanja.app/%EB%8F%99 lists 38 동 and https://koreanhanja.app/%EC%84%9D lists 29 석. Is there anything to say about the $38\times 29-24\times 20$ unofficial 동석 ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The official list of hanja for use in names (see Article 37 of these regulations) consists of the Basic Hanja for educational use plus additional name-use hanja (look for "별표 1" in that link) and permitted variant forms (별표 2). The numbers in Dong-suk and a bunch of other articles are using an out-of-date dead link as the source. And no one is very enthusiastic about going around to all the articles to update the numbers, because the number itself isn't very helpful anyway. Maybe listing the hanja on each article (and linking them to Wiktionary) would be better. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There's some general guidelines for name lists (for all languages, not just Korean) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, but it doesn't give any guidance about dividing into sections. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. In general, I guess separate sections are helpful if the name list gets really long. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

V Live channel as official website?

Can V Live channel be used as official website inside the infobox and also external links?

I'm asking this because SM Entertainment have ended their Star Home service on December 31, 2020, the website with .smtown.com that is found inside SM Entertainment artist's article(s).

Currently, visiting respective SM artist's .smtown.com site return a notice telling visitors that future news and schedules would be posted on upcoming V Live channel called "SM ARTIST OFFICIAL FANCLUB Channel". Which in turn means the website status is consider dead.

As of this writing, the channel is not yet published. However, I would be great if there's consensus on the topic. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 06:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Since vlive will be their primary listed website according to their company it would make sense to direct people there. It being hosted on a third party website doesnt change that it is their new primary activity hub, in my opinion. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about organization of articles on dynasties

There is a general question about how articles about dynasties are organized, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties. Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Korean given names

I think that all names in Category:Korean given names should be moved to their spelling according to the Revized Romanization. This would also fit WP:NCKO better than the current system that just uses a rather random spelling. --Christian140 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure writing all names in the revised romanization would be the best way to go about it. Common usage still comes into play, and many individuals write their names with common romanization instead of official (Such as writing Kim instead of Gim). I feel making sweeping edits to only use one would be confusing, since a huge number of people still rely on and use the common spelling.

I would suggest reformatting to list common and revised romanizations when applicable. The one update I can agree with making standard is romanizing names as two syllable blocks with a hypen, as it doesnt change the readability or searchability of the name but allows some form of standardization. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Revized Romanization is actually the most common one. And for family names, the Revized Romanization already has exceptions. Also, I was only talking of given names. --Christian140 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I still think it would be a benefit to list both where applicable, since there could be some confusion. Take the name 진희. A popular celebrity romanizes that name commonly as Jin-Hee, while the revised romanization is Jin-Hui. Listing one and not the other would cause confusion, since both are still in usage.Jayb.rd98 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

While digging through the article, I found the issue you were discussing. I agree, changing the standard names to revised would be beneficial, with a side note to denote the common spelling. I have also noted some names seem to have incorrect romanization lists? Such as the syllable block 윤 being listed as “Yoon” in all romanization, while everything I can find lists the correct romanization as “Yun”. Is this a failure of my reaserch, or an issue with the articles? Jayb.rd98 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In the English wikipedia, the statements for Revized Romanization and McCune-Reischauer are often very wrong. Yun is correct. For both, RR and MR. Many people who edit these articles have no clue about Korean, yet their romanizations. Actually, even though I not really like the revized Romanization because of exceptions it allows and the "eo", the rules are quite easy. But still, many do never take a look at Romanizations guides. MR, however, is quite complicated I think, simply because of the variants that exists. There is the pure McCune-Reischauer, there is the North Korean McCune-Reischauer, there is the American academic McCune-Reischauer, the German library system McCune-Reischauer and many more. And they are all different. Similar, but different. There is also this tool from the Busan National University. RR is always 100% correct. For MR, I am not sure. I think it uses pure McCune-Reischauer. The most common variants you usually see, however, are the North Korean and American. Anyways, I know a lot of the romanizations, but sometimes get mixed up. E.g., until recently, I was sure that RR would disallow the use of a hyphen for native Korean names, unlike for Korean names based on hanja, where hyphens are deprecated but allowed. However, that rule is actually for a form of McCune-Reischauer. Not sure anymore if the German or the pure one. In my opinion, both Romanizations need to go and both Korean governments should make one final approach for a Romanization that can stay forever and is as good and pinyin. --Christian140 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Christian140 While I agree with everything you said, thats a discussion for the blue house haha. But for wikipedia purposes, it’s worth going through and updating things to use RR as the default, just to get SOME semblance of Standard and consistency involved. I’d be happy to begin going through the given name page and fixing this up if thats generally agreed upon. It’s been bothering me how inconsistent the given name pages are, so fixing them up (and expanding on them) would be something I’m down to help with! Jayb.rd98 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

South Korean film maturity ratings

Just a note: As of January 1st, 2021, the Korea Media Rating Board changed their icons for maturity ratings. https://www.getnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=243006 --Christian140 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC) You can see the new ones also featured on their website. --Christian140 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)