Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Korea (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 


Help me improve this new article: National Aerospace Development Administration[edit]

It's North Korea's recently funded space program. Tetra quark (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Are these high importance articles?[edit]

I ran across a couple of articles that were tagged as high importance for WP Korea. The thing is, they were tagged as such by someone who is, as far as I can tell, not a member of this project (no big deal), but I can't fathom how these could be considered high importance in any project, let alone this one, as the subject matter barely relates to Korea at all. Both articles are about an annual international music festival held that year in South Korea. See ABU TV Song Festival 2012 and ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 Those kind of events are a dime a dozen in Korea. It even had a picture of TVXQ so old the member lineup was definitely not the one that performed at the event. So what is the etiquette in this situation? Can an individual editor like me change the importance (I'd put it as "low" for WP Korea), or should we get a consensus here, or should we just ignore it? I don't know the proper protocol. Thanks for any feedback. Shinyang-i (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course those are improperly assessed. My rule of thumb is: Top=People abroad probably know about it, High=Most people in given country know about it, Mid=Some people in given country know about it (1 in 10), Low=Nobody cares but a few people (1 in 100 or less). The festivals you cite are, of course, low importance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and changed them; we'll see if anyone yells at me. heh heh Shinyang-i (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion[edit]

This discussion has been sitting around for awhile Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#Korea.com and Mwave forums and I don't know what to do at this point. Can I go ahead and update the sources page as proposed? Barely anyone spoke up, as is usually the case. Can someone provide some guidance? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

From looking at talk it seems there was enough agreement to make the change, I would just ask you be clear that we are talking about the forums because if anyone starts telling me MWave is no longer source-able I will give up searching for references until I learn Korean. lolPeachywink (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Angel Musical Instrument Co., Ltd.[edit]

Your comments on Draft:Angel Musical Instrument Co., Ltd. are welcommed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sing! 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably spam failing WP:COMPANY, but all the sources are in Korean, so I will defer to readers of that language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, subject itself is notable but spam spam lovely spam. — regards, Revi 04:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Kim Chi-ha or Ji-ha?[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Kim Chi-ha. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

-cha[edit]

See the Talk:Gugija Cha#Requested move 4 March 2015. I think it should change the article's name from "Gugija_Cha" to "Gugijacha" like other articles for korean tea. The proposal was rejected. How shall I do it? Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You could resubmit your request as a second attempt and this time come here and make a post asking people to join the discussion to get more opinions. However I would urge you to post in numerous places asking for more opinions since it can be hard to get people interested in such discussions...maybe post on other Korean tea articles' talk pages about it to see if you can get more people to give their vote one way or the other. However, I think it will still be difficult. Just from looking the general article on Korean tea it seems to be almost a 50/50 split between the spelling variations among the listed teas, making it hard to draw an opinion on which way is correct for those of us who are not professional translators. Peachywink (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

KTV[edit]

This disambig is missing a reference to whatever Korean station is using this abbreviation. See File:Choe Kwang-shik (7934136338).jpg (this is a Korean station, right?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Well, do you find KTV Gukmin bangsong? Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject South Korea?![edit]

WP:WikiProject South Korea and WP:WikiProject North Korea

Okay, you guys might think I'm dumb, but I had no idea WP:ROK existed. There is an entire other Wikiproject for South Korea (born in 2010), and I only learned this because I saw someone tag a new article with its banner. All of the Korea-related content "infrastructure" is part of this WP, not that one. There are thousands of South Korea-related articles tagged with this project's banner, not that one, but can you imagine seeing an article with both WP KOREA and WP ROK's tags? From an organizational point of view, having both projects seems ... not good. It looks little-used though one editor is actively tagging for it and it has some 500 articles in it. Any comments, insights, etc? Shinyang-i (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Whichever is more active I think should take precedence and have pages merged into one...or whichever is the easiest to move ( has fewer things that would need to be merged). I am concerned about the loss of talk archives but don't know much about how merges this size are done so that's just my own thoughts with nothing backing up that fear. Mergeing makes since that way all the editors working on these types of pages have one place to go. (Side thought: Does WikiProject South Korea not work on the North Korean articles? Because frankly dividing those two is not ideal either as I think a Wikiproject North Korea would by name alone turn off a few potential editors.)Peachywink (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many WPs within other WPs. For instance, WP Korea is "within" WP Asia; a ton of WPs fall under WP Biography. But having both Korea and South Korea...that's just too close to me, especially when most content on modern topics in WP Korea is about SK by virtue of NK's closed nature. Or else there needs to be a mass migration of South Korean topics to WP ROK and some kind of master plan. I ain't manually retagging a gazillion articles, haha. (Talk pages are still accessible after merges, have no fear.) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It'd be easy to merge WPROK into WPKOREA as a task force. Since WPROK has had almost zero activity in 5 years, it should be merged here. It can be moved to WP:WikiProject Korea/South Korea ; {{WPKOREA}} can have a switch added for South Korea; the other South Korean taskforces are taskforces of WPKOREA not WPROK. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally have no idea how to do that and don't even know some of the terms you use, ha ha. Is anyone up for this? Shinyang-i (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, somebody had a bad idea. We barely have people to make this one function; we (sadly) have not enough activity to support anything smaller than a Korea WikiProject. Based on next to no activity there, I have tagged it as inactive, and I suggest archiving its talk page and redirecting it here. This is how we salvaged WikiProject Poland years ago, by archiving subprojects for Polish geography and history, and merging it with Polish-language noticeboard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Piotrus, there is also WP:DPRK and it looks like someone took the North Korea working group out of WP KOREA and added it to WP DPRK a couple of weeks ago. I see no discussion, though. I had no idea it happened, I was still tagging pages as WGs within this Wikiproject. This is all really confusing. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Revert it as no consensus to do so. — regards, Revi 04:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, a good find (re Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea). Another inactive project: no discussion at it's talk page for two years. I'd propose a similar action: archive talk page, redirect it here. We don't want new people signing up there, only to see no activity and go somewhere else. Here is where we have to channel their activity. Oh, I see that Wikipedia:Korea-related topics notice board exists, through its talk page redirects here. Still, the page itself would probably be better integrated here. It is just a list of Korea-related featured content, and of little usefulness to anyone, particularly under its current name. Finally, I'd strongly recommend archiving and closing any taskforces here. Such pages are almost never anything but forgotten and unused wikiprojects masquarading as not. There is no discussion, no activity of a taskforce that cannot be handled better by the parent project, unless it becomes to active. Which I very much don't think our project here is. Let's pipe all those venues here; if we are lucky we may get one or two more active members... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot undo the page move, but I'm not sure why. I think it has to do with redirects and whatnot. Regarding task forces, if you are including working groups in that (I see the terms used interchangeably), the popular culture working group has been used quite a lot but it might not hurt to merge it and bring in other Korea-interested editors that talk on the main project page. I also recommend serious beefing up of the MOS and such, making it rather detailed when it comes to kpop, because there are like a teeny number of editors who have a vague clue how things are supposed to be and another 500,000 who just do whatever the hell they want and get all their how-to from other terrible kpop articles. It's just a non-stop miserable fight to get even the smallest things cleaned up. I was even working on a very rough kpop MOS a while back but it never went anywhere... Shinyang-i (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So... return WP:ROK to WP:WikiProject Korea/South Korea and return WP:DPRK to WP:WikiProject Korea/North Korea to return to the status quo from 2014. (we can ask at WP:RMTR for a revert of the two page moves, since they used to be subpages of WPKOREA, and were moved without discussion, clearly something that is highly anti-consensus for Wikiproject pages) Then the WPROK task force needs to be indicated on the project banner.
 |tf 2={{{sk|}}}
  |TF_2_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/South Korea
  |TF_2_NAME             = South Korea working group
  |TF_2_TEXT             = {{WikiProject Korea/tf text|{{{class|}}}|Korea/South Korea|South Korea}}
  |TF_2_IMAGE            = Flag of South Korea.svg
  |TF_2_SIZE             = 30x30px
  |TF_2_MAIN_CAT         = WikiProject Korea South Korea working group
needs to be added between
  |TF_1_MAIN_CAT        = WikiProject Korea South Korean politics working group
and the line that occurs immediately after it:
}}
And the taskforces that were severed from WPKOREA into WPROK also need to be returned to WPROK.
Also {{WikiProject South Korea}} and {{WikiProject North Korea}} needs to be reverted into redirects to {{WikiProject Korea}}
-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Korea/North Korea is hardly inactive. We just like to keep discussions on individual articles' talk pages. The move that would have made us a separate Wikiproject was not based on any consensus (see here). Revert the move for now, but don't merge the entire taskforce into WP:KOREA. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a reversion of the undiscussed moves. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The moves have been completed, so WP ROK and WP DPRK are now again working groups under WP KOREA. I don't know how to do the banner editing because the page is locked. Also, is there a way to non-manually change the banners on pages tagged for ROK and DPRK to the KOREA one? I know nothing about those kinds of technical things, unfortunately. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You can ask for a WP:BOTREQ to fix that issue (replace WPDPRK with WPKOREA|nk=yes and WPROK with WPKOREA|sk=yes (or add |sk=yes and |nk=yes to an existing WPKOREA banner if there are multiple Korean project banners) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Korean education article notability discussion[edit]

I just wanted to mention this discussion taking place about whether 60 or so articles on Korean colleges should be deleted for lack of notability. I am strongly against these proposed deletions and am interested in hearing the opinions of other members of this wikiproject. Rystheguy (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Commented. Gotta give her props for boldness, I guess. Situations like this come up in other countries too, perhaps a discussion with many editors that involves WP:WPSCH would help interpret notability guidelines in relation to these types of institutions. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Undoing the WP:ROK and WP:DPRK confusion[edit]

The Wikiproject North Korea and Wikiproject South Korea pages have been moved back to their original place as working groups of Wikiproject Korea. However...

  1. The pages themselves are still full of erroneous language; by looking at the history, I couldn't figure out how to undo it or what the original language was. Can someone help?
  2. Though Template:WikiProject South Korea history indicates it was created very recently, the banner is present on over 500 articles ... it seems the banner existed for some time, or existed in the past, or something (I don't know). All links on the banner redirect to WP Korea, but I personally find it confusing to have it in existence. Ditto for Template:WikiProject North Korea, though its used on few articles.
    1. Should we nominate either or both templates for deletion?
    2. Should we try to migrate pages with those banners over to the WP Korea banner? If so, does anyone know a way to do it non-manually?
  3. Template:WikiProject Korea apparently cannot be edited by regular editors. Does anyone know how to go about making the changes suggested by the IP in the discussion above?

Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Those talk page templates should be redirected here. I think asking at WP:VPT may help. For making edits to protected pages, use {{Edit template-protected}}. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Enlistments: Conscription in South Korea[edit]

Hi,

I just need to point out that references are needed for notable enlistments (such as Lee Sungmin of Super Junior) in the Conscription in South Korea page.

Thanks!

Tibbydibby (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the page. Do we really need a huge list of pop stars who have been conscripted? It's beginning to look like a WP:COATRACK. --benlisquareTCE 21:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
it seems unnecessary since most male celebrities have to go at some point. Peachywink (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Feels like it's detracting from the main topic. The page is no longer about military conscription, the laundry list of celebrities makes up a giant portion of the page. --benlisquareTCE 04:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The list should be deleted. Or moved to a separate articles; the phenomena of pop stars in Korean army may be notable in itself. Is there any term for it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like it's something to be listed on the celebrities Wikipedia page and only there. Except for maybe the instances of attempted dodging, as they can highlight the issue of people trying to avoid the mandatory service, and the incidents that led to the disbandment of the celebrity unit. Because it's not that notable that these celebrities served since they're legally required to unless they have a major health problem. Peachywink (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)