This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Can other people more knowledgeable than me help clean up Hyundai and all the related disambiguation pages, redlinks, templates, and plain wrong information? I worked on translating the main Hyundai template, and then noticed there were separate templates for different Hyundai groups, which need to be combined or organized somehow. I've worked on the Hyundai and Hyundai Group articles, which need more work. I think we can delete Hyundai Group (disambiguation) or redirect it to Hyundai Group. The article Hyundai should provide better guidance for readers who just typed Hyundai, probably looking for the car company or other specific Hyundai product. I'm not sure whether HyundaiorHyundai Group should be the main article on the detailed history of the companies. It would be nice to have a complete chart of all the Hyundai companies, showing the histories and relationships. CronusXT22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to help, but I'm quite amazed at how uninformative the Hyundai article is. I am not an expert in Hyundai's history but I can do some research. Good friend10000:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
JPOV Sockpupp
Hey guys, I'm really frustrated with sockpuppetting from both KPOV & JPOV accounts. We've lost several key WikiProject Korea editors who were found to be sockpuppets.
On the other hand, we've gathered evidence of JPOV Wikpidians mobilizing in forums such as 2ch.net. And they've been very smart in managing time, areas of interest, etc. so that the user accounts may not be tagged as sock puppets.
For example, when I submitted sockpuppet report for Opp2, I noticed that on his edit summary, he was virtually 24-hour working machine. I don't know how it's possible, but he has edited throughout all time zones. In other words, you don't even know in which time zone he lives. I believe that he's actually sock puppet controlled by several forum members at once.
Now, Opp2 is completely inactive. He's completely out of the Dokdo discussion. And guess what, new accounts pop up! They have absolutely 0 info on their user pages. They are the red accounts. Shroud00, SO, Yuje, etc. Hmm... Now that Opp2 has lost his credibility & disappeared, other accounts pop up around the same time! Suspicious?
Hey Good friend100, as for bringing Japanese invasions of Korea to featured article standard (which, by the way, was our agenda last year as well...), there's no way we can achieve this unless we can apply citation-per-factual statement mode of referencing. There are just too many POV's, rumors, and personal theories that are intermingled with the facts that there's no way to fix them under the status quo. Furthermore, whenever some "expert" adds his own personal craps, there's no way for users like us to check upon them; therefore, the article's constantly undergoing degradation. Finally, I think that the best I could do for the article is grammar & contents (very limited number of sources on this topic for me here), but I feel that they'd be fixed further by other "experts" (I've seen it happen).
We need lots of refs so that when an "expert" adds something, we can rush in, revert, and slam on the desk: "You are wrong, and this is why."
I think an article on Northeast Project should be created to keep the Goguryeo article, as well as many other Korean kingdoms claimed by the Chinese government, clean from edit wars. By doing so, we can limit all the recent claims by the Chinese government within the Northeast Project article. We can also give readers proper context by providing explanations on other related historical distortions of the Chinese government, such as the Southwest Project(Tibet) and Northwest Project(East Turkestan). So, any suggestions?
I went on and created the article anyway. I think it would be a good idea to reroute all the controversy in Goguryeo and other related article to that particular article. It gives better context. Cydevil09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
User: 69.91.40.233 I am almost certain is Ming-Loyalist The slang term being "chinnazi" . Cydevil Might know who im talking about. He is deleting material on Yang Manchun and articles his edits are full of POV like "Goguryeo army was totally annilhated out by a mere 5,000 Chinese army" etc and added a controvesy section, he uses soley Chinese sources. As it is you guys will have to work this out I won't be able to sign in for a while.
Jegal02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he's Ming_Loyalist. He'd be a more extremist. However, there is a certain active Chinese nationalist who lives in Houston, Texas. Cydevil23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
From looking at many history-related Korean articles like Go Mosu, some Korean editors have taken the liberty of citing controversial sources like Hwandan Gogi. As much as I hope that those sources may someday be authenticated and verified as reliable sources to enrich Korean history, I must insist that as long as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, we should refrain from citing such sources to make what would be articles that contain very controversial material. Has there been any coherent policy on citing sources like Hwandan Gogi?Cydevil06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A respectable Wikipedian Nlu has resquested for Rfc on Korea history for KPOV. Could you guys comment on this? (Wikimachine02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
This is just wrong. A bunch of Chinese extremists persistently vandalize the Goguryeo article, and Nlu is completely silent to those Chinese extremists even though some of them make blatant racist attacks. Also, speaking of "KPOV", he believes the current Goguryeo article is "anti-Chinese" despite the fact that the article is well up to the NPOV standards coherent with neutral sources of authority. Cydevil10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, how he's dealing with the matter matters for now. I also think that there's lots of KPOV, too, and CPOV & JPOV. But getting rid of one more POV would be better than nothing, and this is request for comments. What's so wrong about listening to outside opinions? (Wikimachine13:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
Are you talking about KPOV, CPOV, JPOV in general, or that Goguryeo is KPOV? If the latter is the case, then I'd strongly disagree. Anyways, as for many other articles, I'd definitely agree there's a lot of KPOV, especially those materials that cite Hwandan Gogi and other controversial texts as its source. Cydevil18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I favor Korea, South or better yet, Korea, Republic(the most accurate). North Korea would be Korea, Democratic People's Republic, or Korea, North. I think those two are more suitable for readers because when there is a alphabetical list of countries, readers can just search for Korea and choose from either ROK or DPRK which are right next to eachother. Cydevil13:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nlu is attempting to mediate the dispute in Goguryeo article, and I find many of his proposals biased and unacceptable. Also, I find it very unfair that Goguryeo article has to be distorted with a Chinese bias just because some Chinese extremists are engaging in edit warring. I think this requires some top priority attention from WP:KO. Cydevil09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The results are what I fear the most. Mediators' top priority is to stop the warring and stablize the article. I'm not trying to be rude to mediators but their knowledge of Goguryeo and its history is less than what we have. Most likely, they will simply conclude that "Goguryeo is neither Korean or Chinese" to stop the warring. This statement is obviously not true. Even the modern politics section in the Goguryeo article have prominent facts that Goguryeo is Korean. Good friend10000:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! That's exactly right! That's why I hesitated in giving up Dokdo article to mediation. At the same time, I think what Nlu is doing is legitimate & he stays cool. If we were to not participate in his initiatives, then the situation would be whole lot worse because the Goguryeo article would look as if there is some sort of Korean lobbying & as if the editors opposing the CPOV are KPOV & therefore the mediators will be unwilling to take sides on both POV's and ultimately draw conclusions on their own. Try to be more like the JPOV editors, who stay cool all the time (except Opp2) & use the administration as a tool. That is not to say that we should try to take advantage of the rules, but I want to emphasize the importance of being cool-headed & looking more acceptable & open-minded. (Wikimachine22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
Agree, at least Nlu stays and directs his efforts to resolving the fighting. I wonder how most admins would start pulling their hair at the discussion in the Goguryeo talk page. Good friend10000:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited & discussed in the Goguryeo article for long enough to participate in the mediation, but anytime you guys think that CPOV becomes too overwhelming to bear, let me know, so that I can use legitimate means to correct any bias or disadvantage. I've already participated in 3 mediations, so I think I'm good. (Wikimachine04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Even the Korean history template is now a disputed article in the mediation, added by an anon-IP whom I suspect to be Yeahsoo. This is getting more and more ridiculous. Cydevil05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Situation is very dire
I drop all of my previous comments on the Goguryeo article. The editor called Ksyrie is very dangerous, and extremely CPOV. The situation's very dire, guys, and whatever that happens on the Goguryeo article will set precedence for other Korean historical articles to be overturned by Chinese points of view. It's an SOS. (Wikimachine04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, I understand your efforts at the Goguryeo talk page and in general housekeeping around Korean related articles, however Wikiproject Korea is not to be used for reinforcement and support to "fight" the other party. The best way is to simply ignore POV editors who supply POV claims.
Remember, wikipedia is to make the articles better. The debate is really on whether or not Goguryeo was Korean or Chinese and does nothing. I'm not trying to discourage you, just keep a cool head and don't react to things before thinking. Good friend10023:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. At the same time, just in case any CPOV editors want to use this post to discret me or the wikiproject, I'd like to say that I was only communicating with those actually within the dispute (it would be very unpractical for me to go to each one of the 10 user talk pages). (Wikimachine16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
Navigation layout
I adjusted the Navigation Bar on the main project space slightly (to eliminate the white spaces and the weird shape). Anyone have trouble with it? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead section is now too crowded with non-text: the shortcut box, navigation bar, and image are all bunched up together. I also think the navigation bar is too wide to be a floating table (instead of the centered non-floating table it was before). Kiersta11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To do list
While trying to clean up the to do list, I realized that there didn't seem to be any criteria for including an entry in the to do list. Including everything that needed improvement would obviously make it far too large. There's also no criteria for removing entries from the list, making it uncertain when other people's additions may be removed (which seems to result in a slowly growing and unbounded list). I would like to propose using a to do list which link to larger pages by task.
Actually, what you're doing is much better than the current one. However, I thought that the to-do list that fits in the template boxes should be small enough & easy to access - that is, people should be able to look at the to-do list & then get started on it. Setting up a bureaucratic way of presenting the to-do list would be unproductive. So, however putting your form as "more"? (Wikimachine20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Like, "This is only a selected portion of the to-do lists. Click here for a larger to-do list." Also, maybe we could have only the high-priority articles in the selected portion. (Wikimachine00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
Do we have a larger to do list? (Actually, I think that every link in my proposed list is a much larger to do list for each area. ^_^;;) I'm also experimenting with including specific articles in the to do list in User:Kiersta/Korea to do with articles (the instructions will not be transcluded in the WikiProject page or banners). It attempts to limit the number of listed articles by specifying an explicit expiration date instead of using inclusion criteria. Kiersta00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to think that the proposed list is worse than the old one, so I went ahead and replaced it. Feel free to include important articles that need to be worked on in the list. The included instructions state that entries should be removed after a month, so I won't have to worry about offending someone when I try to clean up the list. ;) Kiersta13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding Korea history (talk·contribs)'s behavior on WP:ANI. Per the suggestion of another administrator, due to his/her involvement in editing Korea-related articles, I am requesting interested parties to comment on his/her behavior there. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not confirmed anything, but I am positive that users Cydevil and Nlu are operated by the same editor. Keep an eye on both, and I'd be greateful if editors or admins looked into this. Oyo32111:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ummm what are you talking about? Nlu is an admin and they are both oh the opposite sides of the argument. Don't make accusations without evidence. Good friend10012:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This whole "you're a sockpuppet" thing is becoming too much. On every talkpage I'm at, someone is "accused" of being a sockpuppet. *sigh* oncamera(t)15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I usually click on the "quality" and "priority" links in the WikiProject banner to look at how articles should be rated (which means I need to fill some arbitrary rating and use the preview). The documentation for {{korean}} includes the instructions on how the ratings should be written down. Kiersta00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with romanization of Hangul, but there appear to be a trifecta of articles about the same person at Midang, So chungju, and Sŏ Chŏng-ju. I'm not sure if there are more. Although the second title is clearly incorrect, I'm not clear as to what the right title would be (Seo Jeong-ju?). Particularly since there is merging to be done, I thought I would mention it here in the hopes that a more knowledgeable editor can straighten things out. Dekimasuよ!12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all three of them are about the same person.
If there is a better place to list this so that the articles can be merged, please let me know. Or if someone can at least tell me which title is the most appropriate, I can go ahead and do it myself. Dekimasuよ!02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I propse deletion, and/or move and fixation of the Timeline of the Imjin War. First of all, the title is not in accordance with the consensus reached over the title of the Imjin War, the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), and secondly the content is KPOV in that it deals with the biographical details of the major Korean historical figures concerned with the war. First of all, personal biographies has nothing to do with a war time line. Secondly, the historical characters from other nations - Japan and China, should be treated just as much as the Korean characters in their contents. (Wikimachine18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Should be fixed so that it is more NPOV and inclusive of the Japanese timeline. Many editors have contributed, looks worthwhile, is comprehensive, and is informative in its current state --Mumun 無文18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Awards
Hey, I think that WP:KO should have some sort of vote process for giving out barnstars for hard work. By examining user's edit history, etc., we should award the ones who made Korean articles better. Let me tell you first that admin Visviva did a lot to make the Korean articles "possible". He's basically inactive for now, but I think the reason is that writing articles about Korea on Wikipedia lose meaning for people when they do it too much or they observe that nothing much comes out of it. Another person coming to mind is Kiersta. If you look at his edits, he joined this month, but he's done a lot to keep WikiProject Korea running. (Wikimachine03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
I think there are many editors who deserve a barnstar for their hard work, whether it be on the main space, talk page, or keeping things tidy here~ Also, is it possible for WP:KO to make their own barnstar like the ones on these pages? Geographic, WikiProject awards. oncamera(t)16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing I noticed was that on many talk pages, wikiproject templates fill the first full screen height. I think it's really ridiculous, and actually want to congradulate WP:JP for reducing their template size. Let's do the same. WP:KO isn't doing all that good of work in comparison to other wikiprojects, I think, (I mean we are but not enough people, not large enough, etc.), but seems as if we want to show off the most. That's not how it should be.
The grading stuffs in addition to the edit instructions make our template about 1/3 the size of my computer screen. I don't like that at all. Could somebody who's good at editing templates make it extremely condensed and small? The problem is that there is a small version of our template, however we can't go around replacing all korean templates with small=yes korean templates, can we? (Wikimachine22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
Is it possible to just copy-paste most of the Japan template over the Korea one because there's another issue here with the current one. oncamera(t)23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to rewrite the blurb so that's it's shorter if everyone agrees what should be in it. My suggestion is an invitation similar to {{WPJ}}, ratings and working group information in a small font, and removing one of the images (maybe the one on the left?). I had considered rewriting the blurb during my rewrite of {{korean}}, but decided not to unilaterally change it since I didn't know whether many people found the embedded links useful. YooChung12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that the assessment is a pretty good idea. It gives us means to connect all Korean articles together. It's like, I don't know what's been written & what's not b/c there are so many different ways to make a title for a Korea-related article, but there are not enough redirects. I just don't want all the links to editing Korean articles. Links to "Assess an article", "Portal:Korea", etc. are useful, though. It allowed me to assess articles much more quickly than I'd have without the assess feature. (Wikimachine15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
I was talking about "Community: Discussion - Notice board", "Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions", and "Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal" - all of which could be hidden or deleted. (Wikimachine02:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
An IP editor at Sungkyun Language Institute insists on adding names of individual instructors to the page (including a cross-namespace redirect linking to the userpage of the editor who started the article, and nicknames like Valentin "Most likely to edit this page next" Macias). He has reverted my edits twice, including reverting the ambiguous links I fixed and my proposal to merge the article with Sungkyunkwan University. I referred him to WP:COI to no apparent effect. Please provide your thoughts, if you have the time. Dekimasuよ!07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding non-relevant material, or attempting to insert material which is considered as such without using the talk page to discuss is vandalism, pure and simple. The article should be merged with the main article of the university. Because we are talking about one of the oldest educational institutions in the world, such behaviour is all the more unacceptable. If this continues we can report the user to the persistent vandal or incident boards. Also, let's try to reduce trollish behaviour (as per WP:TROLL) and avoid feeding this user, who has shown trollish tendencies, and who seem to want to raise a ruckus in the rumpus room -- I believe the user Jpbarass is here only to cause trouble. ^^ --Mumun 無文16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed¿Cómo estás?18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WPNK
Please check out new article Workers Party of North Korea. I myself do not speak Korean, and have difficulty adding material from Korean sources. For example I'm interested to know if there is material at the Korean wiki articles ko:북조선로동당 제2차당대회 and ko:북조선로동당 제1차당대회 worth adding to the article. Also, the article lacks images, is there anywhere one could find PD/fair use images of party congress, press, propaganda material or pictures of leaders of the party at the time? --Soman08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made some further changes to the template in an attempt to reduce its size. I reduced the size of the picture (because it's a tall picture, it captures more space then a picture with similar size but shorter). I also changed the To Do slightly. Feel free to adjust my change! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Port Hamilton. I am proposing that the modern English name of the island respects the native name, which is spelled "Komundo" by the U.S. government, and "Geomun-do" by South Korea. "Port Hamilton" is a WW2-era name for Geomun-do, like "Quelpart Island" used to be for Jeju-do (note the South Korean spelling, not the U.S. government spelling Cheju Island). Google and other sources show that "Port Hamilton" now should be about a Canadian port. Please comment on the proposed move of "Port Hamilton" to the proper modern name "Geomun-do".WikiWitchWest06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
BCE - CE / BC - AD query
Some articles related to early Korean history and archaeology use BC/AD and others use BCE/CE...and some use both in the same article, e.g. Korean Three Kingdoms. Is there a policy or guideline that is in use here regarding the use of BCE - CE / BC - AD? --Mumun 無文16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Do editors have any particular preference? In the interest of having one standard, I'm willing to go through the said articles in an attempt to change all calendrical dates, whether they be BC - AD or BCE - CE, to one or the other -- although it may take a while. Some of us may object to BC-AD owing to its associations with the West and the Judeo-Christian world (but I don't mean to overly complicate things) and so I would like to be cautious and heed anyone who has strong ideas. If anyone has preferences, leave them below. Mumun 無文22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Be careful with switching all articles one way or another ("When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."). It is, however, important to get the mixed articles fixed to one or the other. —LactoseTIT17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please declare that the person who shot many people in Virginia Tech was not a full Korean, because he came and grew in America since when he was 8. I cannot stand seeing a country "defamed" by the insane man, who does not deserve to be even called a korean.
Yes I totally agree, but you can't "declare" something on a article, it would be rather inappropriate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sidebar
Hello again. Do you guys mind if I convert the Korean project-related information into a sidebar (like in WP:INDIA) ? It might look better, but that's my opinion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(SIMILAR MESSAGE PLACED ON ARTICLE TALK PAGE]. The long lists, large empty spaces, and underdeveloped sections detract from what should be a showcase article.
Do the order of sections as they stand serve the article well? I suggest that the order of main sections be reviewed and possibly changed in order to present basic information about this university.
I think that the Organisation section, a list of faculties, is critical. However, does the section itself need to be so high up in the article? How would it be if we placed the History section above the Organisation section?
The Organisation section, a list of faculties, is presented in list form, which makes it long. How would it be if we keep it in the main article and present the lists in TWO columns (sorry but I'm not sure how to do this!). There could be other solutions as well. Anyone?
The history section remains underdeveloped. As per the previous message I left on the talk page I urge editors who are more knowledgeable than I in this matter to add sourced text. -- Mumun 無文20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to find some information about when the first knowledge of Korea by europeans occurred, and equally, on when Koreans became aware of european culture and history. I see a great deal in WP about european contacts with Japan, and with china, but nothing on this. (The Christianity in Korea article has information about Gregorious de Cespedes in 1593, and there is an excellent article about Islam in Korea which discusses contacts with west Asia. I'll look here for any help you can offer. DGG07:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for stopping by. I'm positive that Korea was first known to Europeans during and around the Unified Silla and Balhae dynasties and also the Goryeo dynasty. Trade and culture was at its zenith during Unified Silla and the silkroad opened Korea to European traders who visited Korea as well as China.
Also, the word "Korea" was first introduced to westerners when they gained knowledge of Goryeo, which is where the modern word "Korea" has come from. Good friend10018:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fish picture needed
Anyone got a freely-licenced picture of 쉬리 (aka Coreoleuciscus splendidus)? No luck on Flickr, where "Swiri" gets you nothing relevant and "Shiri" gets you the occasional photo of someone's posterior. Thanks, cab05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Groovy! Though in the interests of brevity and not top-loading the template too much, I wonder if we can drop the word "pottery" ... -- Visviva07:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought this page would be best to catch the interest of someone who can read Korean. If this is not the case, please direct this note to the proper space.
In the article Video game content rating system, the Korean rating board Korea Media Rating Board is an anomaly. It has two ratings for the same age group, "Adult", which are "Restricted" and "18+". The Wikipedia article should state why this is the case. It could be the result of several things, such as the "R" rating being legally enforceable and "18+" not, or a different suffrage age in Korea. My knowledge of Korea is very limited, but I think the website of the KMRB could have some useful information. However, the English version of that website is severely handicapped, both in information and site accessibility.
I would very much appreciate it if a Korean could look into this problem, and respond here, on my talk page, or on Video game content rating system's talk page. Thanks in advance!
On a related note, while I am here, I wonder whether the KMRB covers both North- and South Korea. If so, is this in theory only, or an example of international cooperation?
And to answer your question, KMRB probably doesn't cover NK. North Korea -as you probably know already- doesn't have interest in electronics and technology. And most of the technolog NK has is in Pyongyang. I doubt that South Korea covers both North Korea. North Korea doesn't make any games. Good friend10022:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Daiwon article is completely wrong, needs ground-up redo
Hey all, the Daiwon C&A Holdings article needs serious help from someone who speaks Korean. Whoever started the initial article just copied information from the Viz Media article, including many statements that are true regarding Viz but do not apply to Daiwon at all. Since I don't speak Korean it is difficult for me to research what information is true and what is false. Maybe someone could translate the Korean Wikipedia article? —pfahlstrom17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal of all information in the article which is false—there's a lot of it. Verification with Korean sources of all information which is true. Unfortunately, though I can immediately identify some of the false information (such as that they published PULP), a lot of the falsehoods are difficult to separate from the truths unless you can read Korean to get the real information from places like Daiwon's website. For example, I highly doubt that Daiwon is owned by all those Japanese companies that the article says own it. —pfahlstrom19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dokdo reverts
Philip Baird Shearer is trying to finalize the Dokdo move to Liancourt Rocks by reverting my edits to the talk, which are data challenging the false accusation of meat puppetry on Dokdo advocates' side. "wait 6 months" and "please" as his gesture of subordination. I'd like for the WikiProject editors to see that Philip Baird Shearer is provoking for a revert war, unnecessarily, and take affirmative actions. (Wikimachine23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
kibun, Hwa, Nunchi
I'm asking permission to use these and make a new article with a disambiguation for hwa and a redirect for gibun and nunchi. I found an excellent article on it that will flesh it out beyond it's current status. Since all three interact and are of the same category, I think it would be a good idea. But I'm not sure what to title it--Korean paralanguage, or like the Japanese article on Tatemae and Honne, individually. --Hitsuji Kinno15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people here may be interested in a new proposal to retitle Sinmiyangyo "Korean Expedition of 1871". Very similar proposals have been discussed before, indeed as recently as three days ago; but all the discussion was summarily shoved into the article's talk archive 1 the day before yesterday. I'd recommend reading it before expressing your reasoned opinion on the proposed name change at Talk:Sinmiyangyo. (Or perhaps the rules have been [unilaterally] set in such a way that none of you is invited ... I'm not quite sure.) -- Hoary04:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the current template {{Korean}} has several problems regarding its functionality, appearance, and back-end coding. Hence, I decided to re-write it from scratch. I created new template on {{Korean_2}}. I'm still working on it (doesn't support working groups yet and a few things to polish) I really hope this can be used and helpful, so please give me your advice/opinions on this new template. Thank you. eDenE05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That's much more elegant, thanks. {{Korean}} is much older than most Wikiproject templates, and has developed a rather serious case of Old Farmhouse Syndrome, with all sort of miscellaneous additions tacked on over time. Remodeling is definitely in order, so thank you once again for taking on this task... To save unnecessary grief, it would probably be best to paste this code into {{Korean}} once it's all ready. Since changing that template has a certain impact on the job queue, please post here once you think it's ready, just so folks can give it a final once-over. Cheers, -- Visviva06:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
All these are absolutely amazing! Bravo! P.S. I'd like for you guys to add the following "qualities": WikiProject, list, category, etc. P.S. 2. Could you make the template as small as possible? Some users including me complained about how large our template was & how most of the talk page overflows with just the loading of the templates. (Wikimachine02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
I've added List and Category class as you requested. But I'm not so sure about WikiProject, since Project class already exists. Regarding the size of the template, I'm planning to change "Korea-related tasks" section which probably contains some useless links that users never use and can be shortened. eDenE12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it works! No. "Project" works, but not "Category" nor "List". I guess you were meaning it for Korean 2 (Wikimachine13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
Joseon Isolationist Foreign Relations Policies
Hello all. I have discovered the following reference to isolationist policies of 16th-17th c Joseon Korea:
"From the perspective of some Koreans, Japan's policy appeared quite liberal. Korea, of course, could trade through its land border with China, but its maritime policies were more restrictive than Japan's. By the mid-18th century some Korean reformers who favored contact with the West looked favorably on Japan's trade administration through Nagasaki precisely because of its openness to the West through the Dutch." (Wray, William. “The 17th Century Japanese Diaspora: Questions of Boundary and Policy.” Thirteenth International Economic History Congress, Buenos Aires 2002. Preconference: Corfu, Greece, 21-22 September 2001. pp14-15.)
Can anyone tell me more about this? Just how tight were Korea's policies towards Western traders, missionaries, or emissaries in this period? I'm not looking for a whole pile of books or anything, just a brief description somewhere, to help me confirm the accuracy of Wray's statement and such. Any help or information would be most appreciated. Thank you. LordAmeth12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Fairly tight, not that Westerners were exactly knocking Korea's doors down trying to get in either. The canonical example here is Hendrick Hamel (and his shipmates), who were shipwrecked on Jeju in the 17th century. There is a great website about him here. Actually the history of Joseon's foreign relation is much more complex than it's usually given credit for, though I don't have a good source to point you to. At any rate, I would be more curious about Wray's support for the apparent claim that some Silhak reformers were looking to Japan as a model in the 18th century; if true, that would certainly be interesting. -- Visviva14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help; maybe I should just check out Wray's sources - that's likely a good start. On the 18th century reformers, he cites Kang, Etsuko Hae-jin. Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Century. London: MacMillan, 1997. pp195-6. Sorry I don't know anything more than that. LordAmeth09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be one of our top-priority articles for the summer but due to a hectic summer shedule I won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia like I would like to but I will try to work on this article. Also if you use an excerpt from a book how do you source it?
Jegal23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should be the Collaboration of the Month. The Imjin War has been the monthly project for months I want to eventually work on this article but im currently gathering research. Does anyone else agree?
Jegal01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of changing the collaboration of the month. Too many distraction w/ POV disputes & simply many of us either don't have access the university research or are a bit lazy. (Wikimachine17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
Seems like a good idea. Normally the idea of a collaboration of the month is that it, you know, changes every month. ;-) -- Visviva01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You could, but the whole point of having a collaboration of the month would be gone if we change it every month & don't accomplish much. Actually, the amount of discussion it takes to choose a new collaboration of the month article would exhaust this community. I rather think that we should get the invasion article to FA status & then move on. Unless it's something definite, a lot of things here get mottled down by POV, other nationalists, kindergarten/elementary professors, etc. (Wikimachine04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
Actually, go ahead. I either didn't get or ignored Jegal's enthusiasm & willingness to create this article on the condition that everyone else would too. I think that there is a lot of literature on this topic on the web, so this can easily be done. I myself want to put this as the collaboration of the month article, but I don't know how the templates work. Visviva, do you? (Wikimachine04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
No. They are the intellectual property of the individual photographers. However, if you contact and ask the individual photographers, they may be willing to release their images. LordAmeth23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So is this an unoffical monthly article? people should come contribute some good work is coming along, what we really need is pictures. Jegal02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what type of mountain the Korea mountains are? Are they block mountains or fold mountains. I'm inclined to believe that they are block mountains, but that would indicate that was no subduction, and I don't know if that's entirely true. It's bothering the piss out of me because I can't find the information anywhere. --Bentonia School09:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Good question... according to Geology of Japan, the mountains of Japan were formed through subduction, so I would be inclined to think that the same is true of the (older) mountains of the Korean Peninsula. I'll see if I can find some better sources; odd that we don't have Geology of Korea yet. -- Visviva11:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC on Korean War
This may be out of place, but we need some fresh commentors, as most of it is the same people going back and forth. There is currently a Request for Comments going on at Talk:Korean War. The more neutral commentators we have, the better. Thank you. wbfergus16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the current template {{Korean}} with {{Korean_2}}. I've tested dozens of times, and seems like it has no problem substituting the current one. Please visit {{Korean_2}} to see examples and throw me your thoughts. I will replace it 70 hours from now, unless someone complains or finds any issues with this. Thank you. eDenE18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, but it isn't categorizing articles by quality or importance like the old one did. Also, would it be better to have the quality and importance ratings in bold text? PC7815:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, a couple more things. :) The template is now categorizing article by quality and importance, but it isn't sorting those categories by quality and importance as it should be. Additionally, why does the template link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment? It doesn't seem all that relevant since we're using own own assessment scales. (Made that change myself, so you can blame me if it's not done right!) PC7815:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I referenced other templates and most of them have links to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Of course, since WikiProject Korea has its own scales, I think your approach is more appropriate. Thank for the change. Regarding sorting categories, I'll look up old template and see how it's been working and try to fix it. eDenE17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the template so sorting is now working. Even though quality scale is alphabetic, I used numbers to make sure they show up first. (* for feature, 1 for A, 2 for B ... 6 for Unstable 7 for Misc (project, cate, list, etc)) It now also categorizes working groups properly.eDenE03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've updated to do page to reduce its size. Also, I merged to do/Major tasks into to do/Institutions, since they are very small pages and separating them is not necessary.
Since Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/to_do/Institutions contains wide paragraph and tables, I added a few #ifeq to reduce its width when small=yes is passed (i.e. when {{Korean|small=yes}} is called). But it is not working as I expected. Can anyone look over the following pages and possibly fix the problem? {{Korean}}, to do, and to do/Institutions.
Anyone. I've rated all articles from . to 0 to A to mid-C. You could help. All other wikiprojects have majority of their articles rated. (Wikimachine03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC))