Jump to content

Talk:Korea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,340 edits
Line 117: Line 117:


Why Koreans cannot talk about 'Korean pages' in Korean? Why English can talk about 'England pages' in English? [[User:Pwd01149|Pwd01149]] ([[User talk:Pwd01149|talk]]) 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why Koreans cannot talk about 'Korean pages' in Korean? Why English can talk about 'England pages' in English? [[User:Pwd01149|Pwd01149]] ([[User talk:Pwd01149|talk]]) 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
: I don't know your reference but most probably the meaning was that there are language versions of the Korea page. For example, there is a Korean-language page and another English-language page. Within the English page, you can not assume others understand the Korean characters and words.

:This is just my opinion: There will be some disparity all over Wikipedia, and the internt, since English is a global language (together with Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese) but Korean is not. Using the internet, you have to accept this fact. That's why you may find English comments even in other-language versions, written by people from all over the world. If you want to help, then how about adding a short translation (and make clear it's your translation, not from the original poster). --Rosetta


== Mis-known facts ==
== Mis-known facts ==

Revision as of 03:15, 17 March 2018

Former good article nomineeKorea was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Findnotice

Cities in Infobox

Busan has a larger population than Pyongyang. Should it also be listed under major cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4080:5960:78ED:5924:9F35:3E7C (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kingdoms Section

Needs editing both for grammar and citation. I am not familiar with Korean history and don't really feel I could properly edit it more than I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgallagher8 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education

"South Korea ranks second on math and literature and first in problem solving[citation needed]. Although South Korean students often rank high on international comparative assessments, the education system is criticised for emphasising too much upon passive learning and memorization. The South Korean education system is rather notably strict and structured as compared to its counterparts in most Western societies. Also, the prevalence of non-school for-profit private institutes such as academies or cram schools (Hagwon [학원]), which too emphasise passive memorisation, as opposed to conceptual understanding, in students are criticised as a major social problem. After students enter university, however, the situation is markedly reversed[citation needed] In Korea, university is hard to enter, and graduation is comparatively easier than entry."

Who is criticising the education system for empasising too much passive learning? This is vague and biased. Do you mean Westerners? Or...? who? where? ..."are criticised as a major social problem." Again, who is criticising anything? Also, what does memorisation have to do with major social problems? Where is the evidence that they ONLY or MAINLY memorise? Do they not work out problems using the memorised (btw ALL countries have children memorise information, it is a basic part of learning! Such as 1+1=2) information? This is just so simplistic and childlike.

Infobox Geopolitical organization

You're showing "largest city" with two *cities*. Please don't make me explain. (Also, "Geopolitical".)Sadsaque (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I saw that and thought it was off. I just fixed it to make sense and to show that Seoul is largest overall as well as in the South. Not sure what you mean re "geopolitical", that's just the name of the template. —Nizolan (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a deceased equine

IP recently made a change to mentioning of "east sea". Hidden text points to Sea of Jap Naming Con which seems to indicate it should properly be Sea of Japan and East Sea or East Sea of Korea should be used once parenthetically at the first mention. That is, unless I'm missing something. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, per the guideline/consensus. Cf. also the notices at the top of Talk:Sea of Japan. —Nizolan (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music

We probably should remove the last sentence of the music section. There is no source for why these particular bands are included and others aren't, and it's acting as an invitation for every IP and their mother to add in their particular favorites. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Done. Don't think we really need many people to establish consensus on this. Pretty straight forward. Just didn't want to be alone on it. Also added a cn to what's left of the section. The cn may be excessive. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Level of protection

I have a question for the regular watchers of this page. I recently added pending change protection to this article because of what I interpreted as recurring but not-terribly-frequent vandalism. But I see that in the last few days it has been necessary to revert bad edits multiple times a day. That level of vandalism usually calls for semi-protection, because it can be awfully hard for the regular watchers to keep up with reverting the problem edits when they are occurring that often. I would like some feedback from those of you who monitor this article: Has the vandalism increased recently? And is there sometimes constructive editing from IPs, or does it pretty much all need to be reverted? Thanks for your input. Pinging @Timothyjosephwood and Nizolan: --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see (m)any constructive IP edits coming down the pipe. Not much of an argument I can see against semi. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection either way really. It does seem like the article is a vandalism/nationalist POV-pushing magnet and I agree constructive edits by IPs seem few and far between of late. —Nizolan (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm going to give it two weeks semi and then we'll see. The PC protection will kick back in after the semiprotection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korea. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know exactly . Tarraoi (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Korea. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public holidays in North Korea

Why does this article have an entire section devoted (redundantly) to public holidays in South Korea, but makes no mention at all of Public holidays in North Korea? Seems a bit of an imbalance. Mark Froelich (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone replies... I've now noticed that some of the holidays mentioned below the "Notable public holidays in South Korea" section do apply to North Korea as well. I guess my question now becomes two-fold: Why does the section title mention South Korea (and not the North) specifically? And why does it link to the main page for the South Korean holidays but not the main page for the North Korean holidays? There still seems to be an imbalance here. Mark Froelich (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious link embedded in page

I recently noticed that clicking anywhere on the article for Korea sends the user to a twitch stream. Someone put a transparent overlay called "Arimaa-border.png" over the entire article - I have heard that a couple other articles were attacked in this way, as well. Please fix this quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshmaster (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

technically incorrect statement: "since 1945 it has been divided into two distinct sovereign states"

Actually, it was divided into military occupation zones in 1945 (just as Germany and Austria also were). The sovereign states didn't come into existence until a few years later... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'East sea' or 'East sea of Korea' please...

Common marking the Sea of Japan in the world. But, this is a document about Korea. Then, Do whatever Korea wants. For example: East sea of korea (Sea of Japan) AoslwjdlqslRk (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Korea page on Korean.

Why Koreans cannot talk about 'Korean pages' in Korean? Why English can talk about 'England pages' in English? Pwd01149 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know your reference but most probably the meaning was that there are language versions of the Korea page. For example, there is a Korean-language page and another English-language page. Within the English page, you can not assume others understand the Korean characters and words.
This is just my opinion: There will be some disparity all over Wikipedia, and the internt, since English is a global language (together with Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese) but Korean is not. Using the internet, you have to accept this fact. That's why you may find English comments even in other-language versions, written by people from all over the world. If you want to help, then how about adding a short translation (and make clear it's your translation, not from the original poster). --Rosetta

Mis-known facts

The Gyeongbokgung Palace?

This is NOT The Gyeonbok-gung place(Laft image). fallow image with thumbnail is geunjeong - jeon(Office). The Office is main hall of Gyeonbok-gung.

Part of The Gyeongbokgung Palace

And, right image is part of The Gyeonbok-gung place. So, this subject is very serious thing. Pwd01149 (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D.M.Z.

What does D.M.Z. mean? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, would be short for "De-Militarized Zone".

Chapters

Presenting the sub-chapter about the Korean war as the end of History is a little awkward.

How about this: From subchapter "Division", move the last half of text beginning with "Since the 1960s, the South Korean economy has grown enormously and the economic structure was radically transformed" after chapter "war" with a new title: "Recent history" (or so) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:89:2F18:8677:227:10FF:FE26:D460 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea&oldid=830816917"