This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Image:SarangEul Chaseo (1928).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Korean films of 1919–1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 2 months ago32 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My guess the original rationale for the 1948 line is that North Korea/South Korea were only officially established in 1948. But they de facto existed from 1945 to 1948, and commonly went by those names. I don't think their official establishment is such an important distinction for us to use such an arbitrary dividing line. 1947 and 1949 in North/South Korea were very similar. 1944 and 1946 were extremely different.
Furthermore, I'd argue North and South Korean cinema were divided even just months after the 1945 division; North Korea's first film was the 1946 newsreel Our Construction, and thereafter its major films were basically all government-produced or approved. South Korean cinema was still largely produced by private citizens.
Interesting proposal: indeed part of your explanation is quite convincing. The list in Japanese and the category in Korean do indeed stop in 1945 (the 2 other interwikis for the list don't) but my question would be: do you plan to create an "interregnum" List of Korean films of 1945-1948, or don't you mind the existence of such a gap in the Lists? I understand the Division takes place in 1945 but the film categorisation on this WP, after 1945, starts from 1948 (as you indeed recall) onwards (NK vs. (S)K films, that is) (following the outline of the official existence of 2 States). I am leaning.... neutral (smile). The List until 1948INCLUDES the list of films made under Jp rule and if that is explained in the page, maybe the problem does in fact disappear.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response, some great points here. Another complication: South Korea was officially proclaimed on August 15, 1948, and North Korea on September 9, 1948. If we use "pre-1948", how do films produced in 1948 before either of those dates get classified? E.g. a June 1948 film produced in the USAMGIK is neither "pre-1948", nor is it "South Korean".
If we went with my proposal (I still prefer it), for 1945–1948, those films would get put into the SK/NK lists and categories. The reasoning for this is that SK/NK de facto existed during that period, and were called as such. Furthermore, it deals with the "June 1948" example I brought up above. Under my proposal, that film would be classified under South Korean films.
Again, the official declaration of these entities that had already de facto existed for several years by this point seems a weaker distinction to me than the 1945 division, which was a seismic change. toobigtokale (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully, this doesn't really address my other points. I acknowledge that elsewhere. That also doesn't address the other problem I bring up elsewhere (restating here): South Korea was officially proclaimed on August 15, 1948, and North Korea on September 9, 1948. If we use "pre-1948", how do films produced in 1948 before either of those dates get classified? E.g. a June 1948 film produced in the USAMGIK is neither "pre-1948", nor is it "South Korean".toobigtokale (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) "pre-Republic of Korea" does not seem very clear... And it is seen from ROK pov, as if NK didn't exist, that is, one could argue, as if the whole history of Korean cinema was meant to lead to SK cinema and not NK films. With all due respect, I think it is a "bad" idea.
2) Films made between August, 15 1945 until/August, 15 and/or September 9, 1948: if they are put in the categories SK/NK (although the State does not exist officially), don't you think it will be a cause of confusion/debate/reverts? Some users/readers are very keen on "official" thresholds. The more general cat:Korean films? This point is for me the weak part of the proposed move.
Whatever is decided, I think a clear and extensive note should be made on the category pages (for ex: "This category is for Korean films made between 1919 and 1948, prior to the division of Korea into North and South." at Category:Pre-1948 Korean films is, even in the current categorisation, inaccurate (the Division is 1945).
3). and to reply to Amakuru, no, I don't think neither 1945 nor 1948 is arbitrary (was this your question?). One is the ending of Japanese rule/de facto Division, the other is the official creations of 2 States. I am still neutral and will be OK with anything you all decide, as long as the category page explains it in detail. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again some excellent points, thanks. Using a general List of Korean films and general category for Korean films is the solution that both the Korean and Japanese Wikipedias use for the 1945–1948 films (after the division and before official establishment of SK/NK).
I'm with you that it's hairy and am uncertain of which solution to take.
Ah, I didn't realise that Japan occupied it from the 1910s to 1948. That should be OK to move the title then, I was thinking you wanted to do it just because of three years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, of course. Do you propose to split 1945-48 then? If Japan was only up until 1945 then we can't include them in your title. ♦ Dr. Blofeld08:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Dr. Blofeld @Mushy Yank Sorry, one more ping. I don't want this discussion to lapse. @Amakuru quick question; if nobody replies would a move be possible as 'unopposed', or would it have to be 'no consensus'? If the latter, I may do a request for comment or similar toobigtokale (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My two cents is still the same, I don't see any need to change the naming which has lasted for years without issue. But if multiple editors feel strongly about changing it I'm not going to protest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the technical issues I mentioned are genuine and hard to spot for most people unless they're pretty specialized in modern Korean history. To others, this may seem a minor distinction (although I'd argue knowing whose control Korea was under from 1945 to 1948 is pretty major, disastrous three years); but I'm sure you'd agree I've pointed out valid issues regardless.
When I've been in similar situations, I've usually gratefully deferred to others who had clear background in the topics I'm not an expert in. All I'm saying is I wish you'd be more receptive to this; feels like you're being a bit protective over it. toobigtokale (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As it can be seen in the List of Korean films, which is this article's upper page, the article's whole purpose is going over the list of the Korean films produced while the country was still not officially separated until 1948.
Of course, as the proposer has mentioned, some films during this transitional period before the official division still could've been distinctively North or South Korean. In such case, the films probably can be just simply be listed in the table and denoted with the table note that explains such circumstances.
So, how about...
1) Just leave article title as it is. Denote the films with a table note if they were distinctively seen as North or South Korean.
I also thought about the narrow scope, but still prefer my orig proposal. However, I'm willing to entertain option No. 2 you provide. I'd reword it to List of Korean films before the division of Korea, to maintain wording consistency with Division of Korea. I'll reemphasize though; I still prefer my original solution. While it may seem nitpicky, it does address a genuine concern. Regardless of what we do, the years as scope comes with hairiness. toobigtokale (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
1) List of Korean films before the division of Korea does not sound right. It's unclear, I find. If we want it to be clear it should be List of films produced in Korea before the division of Korea, which is not a very desirable wording. If we go that way, either mention 1945orJapanese rule, I'd say.
2) a) Are we sure one list/category Allied occupation is the best choice for the Soviet+American occupations? I see the term is used when one considers the period as a whole, but since we are trying to make things clearer about the 1919-1945 period, why give up from 1945 onwards? The fact that, in the lists, "Japanese rule" would be chronologically followed by "Allied occupation" as a whole might give the idea of a certain type of geographical continuity when in fact it's a split. I understand 2 sections can be made. What about the potential category? Is it still the general Korean films? Why not 2 lists /during American occupation/Soviet occupation/? I didn't check but maybe that does not concern that many films in "N"(Soviet) K. Am I making sense?
b) If such is the path chosen, shouldn't the list be named "List of films produced in Korea during the Allied occupation"? (not Korean films)?
3) Are we just discussing the Lists here? Should we not discuss the category/ies too at the same time? Because if they don't match, it's going to be really confusing. But maybe this is not the appropriate forum to do both. If this is renamed, would the category be considered movable accordingly?@Amakuru Can I ask you to confirm that point? Thank you.
I am still neutral, maybe slightly reluctant because the process seems a bit complex, but not fiercely opposed.
P.S. And, if I may,@Toobigtokale I really don't think Dr. Blofeld showed any sign of being "protective" over the page (let alone unreceptive about your proposal). I can't understand that comment and find it a bit unfair and rather unnecessary, to be perfectly honest with you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for the reply, much appreciated.
To your point No. 1, in hindsight I agree with you; the division started in 1945 and was made official in 1948, so "before the division of Korea" is unclear. It doesn't make clear which of 1945 or 1948 is the dividing line. Although using "1945" would run into same confusion as "1948", per the "June 1948" example.
To No. 2, combining the two is because of quantity of films produced. I've been searching for a solid while and am struggling to find fiction films from 1945–1948 from the North. The KMDB seems to list only documentaries or newsreels from them during this period, and searching in Korean and browsing research papers hasn't suggested to me that many (even any?) were made.
The lists discussion comes first, the category renaming I expect to be quick and simple (no discussion; speedy) per WP:C2D.
I don't really mind what you do, I don't own the lists or categories. If there were more films you could split by year. I just thought the title was simple and informs the reader of what period it covers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld07:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
But as I've mentioned before, the title doesn't actually directly align with the period it's intended to cover. While I apologize for being blunt, I'm still a little frustrated by the lack of reasoning provided beyond "I don't like it". toobigtokale (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg){kind=link}
