Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Umyang (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Umyang (talk | contribs)
Line 188: Line 188:




======Romanization of Korean====
======
Hi, I have stumbled on some pages created by WikiProject Korea and the Romanization was highly incorrect. There are official Romanization systems and if your content does not follow them, you are forcing other people to come and edit word by word by word. You cannot just trust that existing content on other pages has been Romanized correctly. The standard now, especially online is the Korean government's system. Please use that, and if you don't know how to do it, please review how to do it before creating content with spellings that will confuse the readers and will not connect to the information that exists in other books, journals, and on others webpages. [[User:Umyang|Umyang]] ([[User talk:Umyang|talk]]) 16:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)umyang
Hi, I have stumbled on some pages created by WikiProject Korea and the Romanization was highly incorrect. There are official Romanization systems and if your content does not follow them, you are forcing other people to come and edit word by word by word. You cannot just trust that existing content on other pages has been Romanized correctly. The standard now, especially online is the Korean government's system. Please use that, and if you don't know how to do it, please review how to do it before creating content with spellings that will confuse the readers and will not connect to the information that exists in other books, journals, and on others webpages. [[User:Umyang|Umyang]] ([[User talk:Umyang|talk]]) 16:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)umyang

Revision as of 16:27, 22 January 2020

WikiProject iconKorea NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Wikimania 2020
Bangkok, Thailand – 2020-08-05
End (optional)
Local Time
(Refresh)

I don't know if I should write the word as it is or translate the meaning.

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B2%99%ED%99%94%EB%B9%84 This article is waht I'm trying to translate. The name of article, should I write in Korean name or translate name? I couldn't find it's English name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdrmstj (talkcontribs) 04:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wkdrmstj You can't write it in Korean on English Wikipedia, so you will need to use a translation or the Romanization of Korean, as there is no English word that means the same thing. Examples in WP are Chuseok, Joseon, Yangban, etc., which are used for words that do not exist in English.

I have done a search to try and find any romantizied versions of 척화비 which may have been used in English language newspapers (I usually do this and use the version most often used). But, I didn't find any. I did find one article that refers to the exact quotes which are written on the stone monuments [1] in JSTOR, but it calls them steles in English, or "stone slabs". The best I can find is this book [2] that calls them ch'ok hwabi", and chokhwapi. Another dictionary site [3] says cheog hwa bi. Translators for Google and Bing are saying cheoghwabi and chuckhwabi.

So, I think Chokhwabi (or Chokhwabi), or maybe Cheokhwabi (or Cheok hwabi), or Cheoghwabi (or Cheog hwabi), are all pretty close.

Hopefully, someone with more experience can also offer some advice here. Or maybe you can translate it more closely with your own knowledge. Good luck to you, interesting topic!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC) And yes, you can translate the meaning in the article, with a citation, use the Google book one I listed above. I think it translates too long to use as a title of the article? What...."Korean stone monuments to guard against attacks by western barbarians", or "Daewongun (spelled Taewongun in Google book) stone monuments against foreign invasion".....yes the tranlated Korean version will be better, right?--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I gave it more thought and looked at Wikipedia:Article titles, a title with a short translation might be better than an unknown Korean romantized word. Although a Google search for 척화비 gives a lot of results in Korean language, the romantized name search "Chokhwabi" or its other versions are not showing up in an English search. So maybe a title with a translation would be best, something like I wrote above, you can use your own translation. Again, hopefully someone else can comment with advise here.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wkdrmstj, I finally looked at your Draft article and you have the name translated to "Anti-appeasement stele". (and WP has page links for both appeasement and stele which you can use). That is what you should use for the page name. Sorry I wandered a bit above. I also found this Cultural Heritage Wiki that provides details about them in Korean and English, which may help with your translation, although it does not reference any citations that I can see, which you could have used, [4] And, for general history, I found another wiki, Korea 100, [5] which also might provide source information for researching and translating articles for Wikipedia. I understand that these subject matters are hard to translate and appreciate your hard work in attempting a difficult task.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean speaker (well, reader) needed

I'd quite like to add this image to the article Seokjeon. It looks as though it's a relatively old painting (that said, while I've got a reasonable grounding in the history of Chinese and Japanese visual arts, I know next-to-nothing about Korean art history, so maybe it's not that old) which would probably make it usable under public domain rules. However, I can't be sure... the caption might tell me more, but it's in Korean, which I can't read. Would someone with a better understanding of Hangul mind taking a quick glance to see whether the text at the bottom of the image goes any way towards indicating the original artist or source? Yunshui  12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized use of the image is not allowed. Such a restriction can't be enforced on 2D replications if the painting's copyright has expired, but without the artist's name or date of publication, it's impossible to determine the copyright status. ƏXPLICIT 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am perfectly aware of that. That's why I am asking for help in determining whether the caption provides information about the painter's identity or the date of the painting. Thank you for educating me in the sucking of eggs, nevertheless... Yunshui  10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"이미지 무단 사용시 저작권법에 따라 법적책임이 따를 수 있습니다" (Unauthorized use may result in legal liability under copyright law)―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone perhaps look at merging any relevant content from Cho Min into the relevant section at Cho Kuk? It seems that the daughter is not notable enough for a separate article. PC78 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be lots of sources. And the article says her work became "a focal point" in the scandal. The large section in the article about it seems to reflect that. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She does not appear to have any notability beyond the scandal, so WP:ONEEVENT and WP:PSEUDO both apply. It's not a question of sourcing. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. She is not notable for a wikipedia article. It should be removed or merged. --Christian140 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I was going to create a list on 대한민국의 명승, which I think would be translated into "cultural scenic treasures of South Korea" but I am not sure. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, it is translated as Scenic Sites of Korea. --Christian140 (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Parks of South Korea

Should we merge the articles on some mountains of South Korea to their respective national parks (Bukhansan to Bukhansan National Park, Chiaksan to Chiaksan National Park, Deogyusan to Deogyusan National Park, etc) or vice vursa? I think that since many of these articles are very stubby and can benefit from mergers. Thoughts requested. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Taewangkorea: Consider WP:NGEO. If a stubby mountain is nonetheless notable, it should remain a stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PUBG Korea League

Could anyone assist with assessing the notability of Draft:PUBG_Korea_League? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: On quick glance it appears to be notable but I will take a detailed look at the sources later today (Source No. 8 by Kukmin Ilbo appears to demonstrate SIGCOV, but need to check for the other). But it contains large amounts of promotional and unsourced material that would need to be trimmed down. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: After another quick look through the sources, it appears to be notable, but the largest problem is that the article is very promotional, so I have declined it as such. If I had time I would trim it down, but right now I do not have the time to do so. It appears that Korean media have referenced it as "PKL" a lot, maybe an abbreviation. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians

Should a section listing concerts/tours be included in articles about notable Korean musicians?

(NOTE: This only refers to major performances where the musician is the headline act, not where they just perform a few songs along with many other musicians.)

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Following Wikipedia's recommendation to “ask for help at the relevant WikiProject”,[6] I would be interested to read the views of this group to see if there's a consensus here, as not all users appear to have the same understanding of this issue. To keep the discussion professional, please cite sources to support statements, as I've tried to do below. This helps focus on the goal of group collaboration based on factual evidence, rather than just individual opinion.

To put this issue into context, a section for concerts/tours is included in articles about American musicians (such as Mariah Carey[7] and Michael Jackson,[8] which are both classified as Featured Articles), as well as some articles about Korean musicians (such as Girls' Generation,[9] which is classified as a Good Article).

Wikipedia seems to confirm that these comparison articles avoid fluff and set precedents:

“A good article...addresses the main aspects of the topic...without going into unnecessary detail.” [10]

“Featured articles...are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.” [11]

Including this information also seems to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle to “use common sense”.[12] Concert tours and ticket sales are financially important to musicians' careers, often more than music releases and album sales [13].

Finally, there are WikiProject Guidelines that specifically recommend including this information in articles: “Page layout ... Concerts, convention/festival and tours” [14]

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to have a civil discussion here about this issue.[15] [16]

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do we need an RFC for a standard staple in articles about musicians? ƏXPLICIT 03:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we shouldn't need one. Unfortunately, another user removed that information from an article, and discussion with that user didn't resolve the situation. Thank you for sharing your view that including concerts/tours is standard in articles about musicians. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as long as there is a reliable source to support the information then I don’t see why this would be removed. They’re a musician, it’s definitely relevant to the subject. Alex (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. (Please note that featured articles, like those for Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson, don't include sources in the concerts/tours section, and the WikiProject Guidelines don't specify that they're required there either.) Hyuny Bunny (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyuny Bunny, I have no problem for including this info, as long as the information is reliably sourced. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taewangkorea, thanks for your feedback. I'm not the editor(s) who added concerts/tours to the article originally, so it's not my own work that I'm defending here. The user who deleted them noted in their Edit Summary, "that these are worth mentioning is questionable", so their decision wasn't based on lack of sourcing. If their edit can be reverted on the grounds that WikiProject Guidelines and this RfC's communal consensus prove that concerts/tours are worth mentioning, then I can try to source them. But it does seem strange to apply higher standards to this article than those used in featured articles. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyuny Bunny: I don’t necessarily mean they should be sourced in the tour section. Jackson’s tours are all sourced where they’re mentioned throughout the article in prose. As long as it’s sourced somewhere in the article. Alex (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexanderlee: Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if it wasn't clear that I was only referring to the listing in the concerts/tours section. What you propose makes sense, as it looks odd to add sources to a list format. If that user's edit can be reverted now, then nothing else needs to be done to that section. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyuny Bunny: Ah sorry for the confusion. I only mentioned it being sourced as I’ve seen edits been made where a tour has been added to a list, but not mentioned and sourced anywhere else in the article. I agree it’s a pretty standard thing for an article regarding a musical act. Alex (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexanderlee: No problem, and thanks for the information. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to add to the general discussion: Wikipedia's essay on Overzealous Deletion states, “Wikipedia is not about what you like and do not like. An article or section that fully conforms with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion must remain, even if one or a few people do not like it.”[17] The outcome of this discussion could also affect other articles, if that user has made or will make the same deletion elsewhere. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit, thanks again for participating in this RfC. According to Wikipedia's established practice, “guidelines document communal consensus”[18], so would the guidelines that I referenced above help document the communal consensus of WikiProject Korea?[19] And would it be appropriate to close this uncontroversial discussion now?[20] Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as long as there is a reliable source to support the information" is pretty relevant, of course--and the K-portals that mostly rehash company PR don't count. In many cases, the "list of tours" or whatever is unverified and questionable, it frequently includes these "showcases", and it seems to be just another way to fill up articles that are written according to templates. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Please note that there were some reliable sources to support the information, and it didn't include any "showcases". According to your rationale above, the entire section should not have been deleted by you, and then deleted again by User:Dr.K.. Are you now willing to allow that section to be restored, if reliable sources exist? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Drmies's points entirely. I also add that to list the concerts/tours, these have to satisfy GNG. In other words, I fail to see why a concert or a tour has to be listed if an article about the event does not exist. At a minimum, an article should already exist for an event to be notable enough to be listed. Dr. K. 04:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dr.K.: Please note that according to Wikipedia, "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" [21] Some sources do exist for concerts/tours, so according to your rationale above, they are notable enough to be listed. According to your rationale, the entire section should not have been deleted by User:Drmies, and then deleted again by you. Are you now willing to allow that section to be restored, if sources exist? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm kind of wondering what the point is of having a list even if the content is verified. If some band goes on tour and plays a dozen shows or whatever in this or that country, that should first and foremost be part of the verified text, the biography if you will. One of the problems here is that we have yet another opportunity for listing and table porn in K-pop articles which, before you know it, is going to be split off into yet another article, creating the supposed need for yet more templates and links in templates, in a domain of articles where the blowing up of factoids supported by PR and fan portals is already rampant. Just look at the article for Kard (band), and their enormously inflated "tours" section, and that for a band that managed to make no albums and sell only 37,000 copies of three EPs. And look at the source for their North American "tour" (four shows in venues of 2,000 sets)--this piece of promotional fluff. So this "verified" really means very little, practically speaking, in that article. Sure, I suppose that PR piece "verifies" something, but it gives no indication that it actually mattered. And this is symptomatic for this domain. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: Your general wondering would be more appropriate to bring up later in another forum, and you would have to respect the many experienced editors who have documented their communal consensus in guidelines and set precedents by making lists a standard practice in featured/good articles.
        • The point of having a list has already been addressed in this RfC – concerts/tours are important to a musician's career, often more than their discography (which also merits a list). Precedents/guidelines/communal consensus all indicate that a list is considered useful for reference purposes, so that the entire text won't have to be searched for that information,
        • The article for Kard isn't a good comparison because the article in question here does not have an enormously inflated tours section, and the band in question did manage to release multiple albums. Nobody is asking for that section to be split off into another article, only that it be returned to the article from which it originally came, to give equal treatment to every musician, regardless of nationality.
        • For everyone's sake, it'd be best to resolve all our old business before the end of the year (UTC), so we can start the new year with a clean slate. That would avoid the need for further escalation of these matters. Any unnecessary delaying tactics will only prove lack of good faith. For the last time, I'm requesting that you respect the communal consensus of the other experienced editors who have contributed to this RfC, drawn up guidelines, and set precedents in other articles. To prove your good faith, please have Dr.K. undo their revert and restore concerts/tours to the article, so I can start seeing to sources. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So for this clean slate, and "everyone's sake", you, with 104 article edits and all this talk, want us to just roll over, without actually addressing a single one of the points I raised, besides saying "this article is different"--which you then want to use to format other articles. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NODEADLINE. If you wanted your RfC to end earlier, you should not have started it so late. Now, you must wait for an uninvolved editor to close it after the full 30 days have elapsed. As far as Drmies telling me to revert myself, it won't happen. We both agree on everything. Also, please, no pinging. It is annoying and useless. I know how to find this talkpage. Dr. K. 03:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies and Dr.K.: I'm not sure where you two are getting this idea that lists of concert tours is an "issue" strictly affecting K-pop. There is a literal WikiProject that offers suggestions to users on how to present the information. There are featured articles and good articles about particular tours, and lists and featured lists that cover all tours by a particular artist. There is no established convention to present the content, so there isn't really "right" or "wrong" way to go about it as long as there are references to back it up. Aside from vilifying K-pop and its audience, are there any actual concerns that justifies removal of said content that doesn't inherently fly in the face of established norms and practices? ƏXPLICIT 07:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit, it sounds as if I am beating my wife continuously. Let's start 2020 with fewer loaded questions. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Drmies said. Also asking the rhetorical question: Aside from vilifying K-pop and its audience... is insulting. If you think my contributions in this discussion, (or Drmies's for that matter), amount to this denunciation, there is no point in discussing anything further with you unless you retract the loaded statement. And, again, no pinging. If you had read my comments just above you would have seen the previous no pinging request. Dr. K. 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including how work has been received by experts and the public in articles about Korean musicians

FYI, there's a Request for Comment about including how work has been received by experts and the public in articles about Korean musicians at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#RfC:_Including_how_work_has_been_received_by_experts_and_the_public_in_articles_about_Korean_musicians.

Please feel free to participate. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic (whisteblower, soldier) that has been declined from AfC due to notability. Korean sources only, maybe someone can improve and rescue it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seo kang joon

Hi. Seo kang joon has received an award for “watcher “ .please add this to his biography ShamimBr95 (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:Hi @ShamimBr95:, as you were told at the article talk page, information needs to be reliably sourced and you are welcome to make this change yourself. Alex (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


==Romanization of Korean

Hi, I have stumbled on some pages created by WikiProject Korea and the Romanization was highly incorrect. There are official Romanization systems and if your content does not follow them, you are forcing other people to come and edit word by word by word. You cannot just trust that existing content on other pages has been Romanized correctly. The standard now, especially online is the Korean government's system. Please use that, and if you don't know how to do it, please review how to do it before creating content with spellings that will confuse the readers and will not connect to the information that exists in other books, journals, and on others webpages. Umyang (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)umyang[reply]