Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. 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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Japanese wiki Kantō Massacre changes

The Japanese Wikipedia version of the Kantō Massacre article (ja:関東大震災朝鮮人虐殺事件) is going under an upheaval right now. I wrote a summary on it here: Talk:Kantō Massacre (take my summary with grain of salt; I'm not a strong reader/speaker so I use a dictionary to read the Japanese). May be worth keeping an eye on. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: the discussion is still ongoing, some of the claims being made are even more explicitly revisionist than before. Some of such claims have gone completely unchallenged. seefooddiet (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Joseon politics are a complete mess

Korean literati purges is a complete mess. Political factions during the Joseon dynasty has very little coverage after the Hungu–Sarim conflicts. Most of the articles in Template:Purges in Joseon and Template:Bungdang have not yet been created.

The four Korean literati purges imo each deserve an article of their own. The Reshuffles(Hwanguks) should be fine with only a single article, since they weren't really cases of bloody political violence, but the result of some very chaotic policies administered by ~~a pathetic simp that is~~ Sukjong of Joseon. Some examples in the Persecutions and Treason Cases should have their own articles if they were significant enough.

Very little people in the enwiki participate in editing obscure Korean history subjects like this, so I won't expect things to improve anytime soon. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and try translating some articles from the kowiki. 00101984hjw (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not add "!" to the hanja parameter of a personal name when using Template:Infobox Korean name

Currently, Category:Wikipedia articles needing hanja is mostly meaningless. It mostly consists of people, but it is difficult to find hanja names for modern people. Even Korean-language sources today usually do not give hanja for personal names. (Chinese-language sources are unreliable for Korean hanja names because they "make up" one when the actual hanja is not known.)

If no one opposes, I will start removing "!" from the hanja parameters of personal names in Template:Infobox Korean name. 172.56.232.191 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please hold off on removal until consensus is obtained. I'm not sure removal of "!" is needed. I'm skeptical of how useful this category is because of how difficult the task is, per your original comment, but don't see the need to deprecate it either. But I want to hear more rationale if you have any, and from other people too. seefooddiet (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is this: Is it really possible to find actual hanja names and fill in those parameters (and remove articles from that category)?
Another important reason: I don't think putting "!" for an unknown hanja name is always followed.
- For example, Jin Ki-joo, Jo Yoon-kyung, Yoon Sang-hyeon, etc., seem to have hanja, but their hanja parameters are simply empty (not "!") – so they do not show up in that category.

172.56.232.191 (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Functionally no, but that doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.
The presence of inconsistency with tagging problems doesn't mean that we should abandon tagging altogether.

It's similar to like {{Needs more references}}. Functionally, it's nearly impossible for every article to be well-sourced, and plenty of poorly-sourced articles aren't tagged with this template. But that doesn't mean we should do away with the template altogether.

Granted, you're right in that that category is probably especially useless; I'm sure few people have ever seen it; I hadn't heard of it until you pointed it out. But still, if it's not hurting anyone and it is identifying a valid problem, I don't see why we should do away with it altogether. seefooddiet (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Blackpink § "K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Ive (group) § "K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Illit § no mention of Kpop on lead

Creating a centralized discussion for the above topic as @Cinemaandpolitics created multiple discussion on such, quote from their statement: Why a K-pop group shouldn't be called a... K-pop group, and clearly K-pop groups, with endless references to support it, and I don't see why they shouldn't be called as such. Cinemaandpolitics updated Blackpink, Ive, and Illit from South Korean girl group to South Korean K-pop girl group, all of which has been reverted by @Flabshoe1 (former) and me (2 latter). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics, changing from South Korean girl group or South Korean boy band or South Korean singer or South Korean rapper or South Korean musician to South Korean K-pop girl group or South Korean K-pop boy band or South Korean K-pop singer or South Korean K-pop rapper or South Korean K-pop musician is inconsistent with other high-quality BLP articles, including FA-class (e.g., BTS) or GA-class (e.g., Blackpink). In which, it's also not the currently observed ~~status quo~~ status quo (not related to the essay). I'm not suggesting that "K-pop" shouldn't be included in the lead, it should be used in a different part of the lead, when summarizing on their musical style or genre coverage, etc, rather than the opening sentence. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) edited 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Paper9oll for making a centralized discussion, which I didn't know how or where to make.

I don't agree with your status quo argument. As far as I could read Wikipedia doesn't have a bias towards status quo (WP:DONTREVERT). I think that this being the status quo is another issue on itself. The exemples you're pointing out being considered GA or FA makes it even more concerning.

Excluding or limiting the K-pop reference in the lead means globally dismissing the vaste amount of conceptual references, industry practices, cultural norms that go along with these K-pop groups. Both generally but also specifically for each group. There are countless references that connect each of these groups to the K-pop umbrella, all already included on the pages. It should definetelly have a prominent role in the lead, as the mention of "girl group" has.

What do others think of this? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to add some additional information, Blackpink being K-pop is currently mentioned two sentences later in the lead in context of the group’s genre, which is the version I restored. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flabshoe1 Which is already a better look than the Illit page, which has 0 references to K-pop in the lead. For me the issue is still relevant for the reasons I mentioned. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a status quo preference (in the absence of other considerations). WP:BRD is better accepted than WP:DONTREVERT, although both are merely essays, not guidelines or policy. If there is a content dispute, the onus for justifying an edit is on the person who wants to change an article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides the technicalities maybe you can also comment on the issue?

The page you mentioned clearly says "BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. Revert only when necessary." and links to... the page I mentioned. Status quo should be prefered only "in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved". So... The status quo argument has little to no value, and can consitute WP:STONEWALLING. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add "K-pop" alongside "South Korean." While it makes sense to include it for genre purposes, adding it next to "South Korean" doesn't seem needed or beneficial. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 19:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "South Korean" and "girl group" sufficiently establish the subject of an article. Blackpink is a girl group from South Korea that performs several genres, including K-pop, according to the infobox and Artistry sections of the article itself. "South Korean girl group" does not describe any specific genres. I would not want to limit groups to one genre in the lead sentence when they perform several different genres, even if it can be argued that one genre is more prominent than the others. For example, the article on Ive also lists J-pop, because they have original Japanese songs. Wouldn't describing Ive as a "South Korean K-pop girl group" be misleading? Therefore, I think it is appropriate to explain the specific genres they perform later, while establishing the subject of the article in a broader sense at the beginning. User350 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. I don't think the exclusion of "k-pop" from the very first sentence somehow minimizes their link to k-pop, especially not if the mention comes within one to two sentences afterwards. "South Korean K-pop girl group" is also wordier. OP's comment of globally dismissing the vaste amount of conceptual references, industry practices, cultural norms that go along with these K-pop groups this is way too melodramatic for this situation.

A gentler guidance would be "k-pop should generally be prominently mentioned in the first paragraph"; I think nearly everyone would agree with this. There's no reason to have a stiff requirement to have the first sentence mention it. seefooddiet (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

K-pop is not only a music genre, but refers to a set of industry practices that these groups shares, or at least refer to extensivelly. Also please note that I wasn't looking for a stiff requirement, I tried to add it to a few groups and got reverted and that's why I wanted to discuss it.

Those groups are clearly established as "K-pop groups". It is arguably the main single most prominent information about these groups, capable of encompassing many others: they get through a K-pop trainee system, their videos refer to K-pop production practices, they share visual grounds etc etc.

Nothing melodramatic, nor limited at the "genre", it is just more precise that "South Korean" or "girl group" alone.

A girl group from South Korea could very well not be a K-pop group. Those are K-pop groups and most source refers to them as such and comment on those very elements that constitute K-pop in them. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My earlier statement [K-pop] should be used in a different part of the lead, when summarizing on their musical style or genre coverage, etc, rather than the opening sentence is reflected by User350 perfectly in their comment. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But why do you think that K-pop means exclusivelly a music genre? Doesn't it carry similar, but more specific, elements that the concept of "girl group" does? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

K-pop is indeed genre. And btw, I'm not and won't be discussing this topic in a restrictive format of just "girl group" as you could have seen above in my reply, I've included other types. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote "exclusivelly" a music genre. If you visit the K-pop page it shows, in the lead already, why it is not only a genre but also a general set of production mechanism etc Which is what I feel is missing from these leads Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Which was why I and other editors already stated that we are not stopping you from including what I feel is missing in the other portion of the lead, in addition to already specifying where you should place them on. Which part of including what I feel is missing in other portion of the lead aligning with others high-quality BLP articles practices is so hard to understand on? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because, as I have already stated, it is in my opinion a misunderstanding to try to find another spot in the lead that portrays these groups as if they relate to K-pop as a genre, similarly to EDM or others. Because K-pop is not exclusivelly a genre.

"South korean K-pop girl group" is for me the most space efficient way to convey what they are.

I will ask a Request for Comment to other editors to see what people that are not watching K-pop pages think about this. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-naming on Joseon grand princes

For example:
Grand Prince Yeongchang (영창대군) --> Yi Ui, Grand Prince Yeongchang (영창대군 이의)
Grand Prince Uian (의안대군) --> Yi Hwa, Grand Prince Uian (의안대군 이화)
Grand Prince Neungwon (능원대군) --> Yi Bo, Grand Prince Neungwon (능원대군 이보)

Any thoughts on changing the article titles like this? Currently WP:NCKO's #Novelty section does not specify on how the names of nobility other than monarchs should be titled. It seems like there aren't much English sources on how the names of Joseon grand princes should be formatted, but the changes will surely make them more consistent with European royalties per WP:NCROY. Korean sources seem to use both styles, but more of the status quo. 00101984hjw (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you make a post on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)? If you haven't already seen, we're currently working on rewriting the MOS and NCKO. We could add in guidance per your recommendation. When you post, could you explain a bit more how these titles work? Namely, is "Yeongchang" solely for Yi U, or did that name pass on to the next person with an equivalent title? seefooddiet (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Asia League Ice Hockey

Asia League Ice Hockey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:East Asian age reckoning#Requested move 21 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:East Asian age reckoning#Requested move 21 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gangwon Province (Korea)#Requested move 5 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gangwon Province (Korea)#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

SPA

A newly-arrived SPA has been removing the claimed hanja for the 'gul' of hangul, and changing romanisation. They claim "nonsense", which is not likely. See Special:Contributions/218.158.10.163. Can someone please look at it (I am not remotely a Korean expert.) Imaginatorium (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the user is correct, and they provide reasonable evidence for their point. See this related explanation in our upcoming draft MOS. seefooddiet (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Good Entertainment

Can someone provide some assistance at Draft:Good Entertainment? Although I wish I spoke more than one language, I do not and cannot seem to properly copy and paste into Google Translate. Can someone opine as to the reliability of the sources and if they feel the company as a whole would meet WP:NCORP based on those sources (using WP:ORGCRIT)? CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt either Good Entertainment or its parent company GoodEMG will meet WP:ORGCRIT. Many of the Korean sources seem to be reliable (Yonhap News, Naver Encyclopedia, etc.), but all of them do not contain significant coverage of the subject except for the one from Naver ([1]). The rest are articles which only contain trivial mentions of the company. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick naver search does reveal an article which talks about the company's contract with Shinhwa in 2003 and 2006 ([2][3]) and some other details about the company as well, like how it acquired a company listed on KOSDAQ in 2005 ([4])and was dissolved in 2008 after Shinhwa members were drafted into military service ([5]).

However, I'm not sure if that's enough sources to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Other Korean-speaking editors may know better. - 00101984hjw (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

North Korea style guideline

Hello, if you haven't already seen we're working on rewriting MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal) (talk page).

Publicizing a proposal I made for the MOS. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)#Romanization for North Korea articles...

Tl;dr what I'm proposing is effectively the status quo for North Korean romanization (McCune–Reischauer and not NK's romanization), except for having all MR personal names not having hyphens or spaces in them.

I want to hash this out because 1. there seemingly hasn't been an adequate past discussion on why we don't use NK's romanization and 2. I want to avoid mixing/matching NK romanization style guidelines with MR style guidelines. seefooddiet (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No commenters so far; please note that this is a major topic with significant impact. Its implications could affect almost every North Korea-related article on Wikipedia. If no discussion from this Wikiproject, I may move to an RfC, which I'm hesitant about because this topic requires some subject matter expertise that others may lack. seefooddiet (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Name order for South Korean ICC judge

Hi – I asked this question at the help desk, but it wasn’t answered and someone suggested to ask it here. I hope you can enlighten me :-)

I want to create a stub on the South Korean judge Keebong Paek who was recently elected to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and I'm trying to figure out the appropriate name order. WP:NCKO says "Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise, family name should be written first." This promotional video for his ICC candidacy published by the South Korean Foreign Ministry refers to him as Keebong Paek (which is the Western name order, given name first). I'm not sure whether I should infer from this that "the subject is known to prefer otherwise" – for all I know, the Ministry might have a policy of Westernization and he might be opposed to it. But this is also the form of the name that's consistently used to refer to him at the ICC, and even a Google search restricted to .kr sites yields a lot more hits for Keebong Paek than for Paek Keebong. On the other hand, a tweet from the Foreign Ministry (that published the above video) upon his election refers to him as Paek Keebong, and that's also the title of the article in the German Wikipedia (the only one that has an article so far).

I feel that much speaks in favour of using the form Keebong Paek that all his work at the ICC (by far his most prominent activity so far) will be associated with, but it would be a stretch to say that the subject is known to prefer it. How to resolve this?

Joriki (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would title the article Keebong Paek, given its usage by both MOFA and the ICC, and apparently being more common. If he goes by that name at the ICC, it is likely that future sources will also predominantly refer to him as Keebong Paek. If there is ever a clear statement of personal preference, it can always be moved. CMD (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your reply! I’ve created the article now: Keebong Paek. I added an explanatory note about the name order. Joriki (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Restaurants

I've been realizing that our coverage of restaurants in both Koreas is pretty poor. Before my additions, a lot of Category:Restaurants in South Korea was chains, fast food, or family restaurants. Compare to Category:Restaurants in New York City; fantastic coverage in this category.

I created this template {{Historic restaurants in South Korea}} and wrote all the articles in it at present.

Also, if you're interested in North Korean restaurants those need coverage too. I'm unlikely to get around to those. seefooddiet (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also working on List of Michelin-starred restaurants in South Korea and List of oldest restaurants in South Korea. Even if you don't edit on these, give these lists a peek and try visiting a few of the restaurants on here. seefooddiet (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet I've created Bluefin Tuna and Sushi, which originated in Seoul and operates in Portland, Oregon. I am curious if you or other project members might be able to find additional information about this restaurant's operation in Korea, or even confirm if the business still operates there. As always, any article improvements are welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Can't seem to find RS coverage of the restaurant from when it was in South Korea.

I'm not sure if they have locations in Seoul at present. There's a restaurant with that name currently in Seongnam (I think I've actually seen it in person before lol). Cities like Seongnam are sometimes considered "metropolitan Seoul", so they may just be handwavey calling it "Seoul", like how people in Jersey City tell others they live in "New York City". Possible that's the restaurant in question, but unfortunately no RS I can find. seefooddiet (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Okjeo language

Okjeo language has been nominated for deletion. Comments are welcome at the discussion. Kanguole 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment for including specificity (K-pop) in South Korean artist labeling in the lead

Should South Korean girl groups like Blackpink and NewJeans be referred to as "South Korean K-pop girl group" in the lead? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto the restrictive RfC. Should South Korean boy band (for example: BTS, Super Junior, Seventeen, NCT, NCT Dream, NCT 127, Exo etc) or South Korean singer (for example: Taeyeon, IU, Jennie, Jimin, Jungkook, etc) or South Korean rapper (for example: RM, Lisa, Jeon So-yeon, Zico, Lee Young-ji, Moonbyul, etc) be referred to as "South Korean K-pop boy band" or "South Korean K-pop singer" or "South Korean K-pop rapper" , respectively, in the lead? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm strongly against it, as it feels a bit excessive. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: has consensus ever been established on whether k-pop is only a genre vs also being an industry and its practices?

I'm asking mostly out of intellectual curiosity. I don't think it's that important to have "k-pop" in the first sentence, even if there is a consensus on this topic. A significant chunk of people globally know that k-pop is South Korean pop music, not worried anyone will misunderstand the situation or not link these groups to k-pop. seefooddiet (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet The page K-pop referes to the broader meaning of industry practices on lead. There are countless references to support it.

Also I want to make it clear, since the title of the RfC was modified after I opened it, that I edited specific pages where I feel the sources more than adequately refer to the groups as "Kpop group". I had no intention of modifying 20+ pages in a sweep. Also note that two of the pages I had edited currently don't have *any* reference to K-pop on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, as long as "k-pop" is mentioned prominently in the first few sentences, I don't think this debate is that important. Those articles missing it in the lead should have it added somewhere, but I don't care where, as long as the prose flows naturally. Could be any of the first few sentences. The net effect will be indistinguishable. seefooddiet (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean that would be at least something. For me that is the prose that flows more naturally, because that is how the vast majority of the sources call them. I am not against at least having some kind of direct reference to K-pop. I've just noticed that actually for NewJeans there is a reference to K-pop in the lead, I had missed it because for me this kind of formulation is hilariously indirect.

"the former becoming the longest-running song on the Billboard Global 200 by a K-pop female act."

Using "by a K-pop female act" without previously establishing that they are one doesn't flow naturally at all for me. What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If it seems indirect, I'm ok with revising the article to make it more direct. First sentence mention I'm not strict on. That's all I have to add to this topic; I'm repeating myself at this point seefooddiet (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's something.

I am not strict on first sentence either, I just think that the lead should be able to include the K-pop term not exclusivelly as a genre but as a set of industry practices. This was your first question and I've seen no argument against it yet. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no "aha" moment here; this is the same opinion I've had since the beginning. The question had no bearing on my opinion. seefooddiet (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Wikipedia does not use "American pop singer" or "English pop singer" in the lede of those artists, so why exactly should there be "South Korean K-pop group" or what not in the lede for K-pop artists? I don't see a convincing argument here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it is the most concise way to refer to a complex set of industry practices that do not only relate to a musical genre. This is the exact same thing that "girl group" does by the way, only with a different scope. Maybe my argument is not convincing, but at least it should be taken into consideration instead of exclusivelly talking about K-pop as a genre. Also, I looked up the opening of the Britney Spears article.

"Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American singer. Often referred to as the "Princess of Pop", she is credited with influencing the revival of teen pop during the late 1990s and early 2000s."

She gets an immediate mention to her most prominent genre, this, at the very least, seems mandatory to me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: K-pop is increasingly becoming an international genre, encompassing groups not just from South Korea. Much like how Latin singers come from all over. See UK's Dear Alice, US's VCHA and Katseye, Japan's NiziU and Nexz, China's BOY STORY and WayV, and Blackswan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphidius (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe that it is unnecessary to require a mention of K-pop in the first sentence of a lead. However, I do believe it can be integrated into the lead of articles in a relevant way. For example, the creator of this RFC used Britney Spears as an example. Her lead reads:

"Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American singer. Often referred to as the "Princess of Pop", she is credited with influencing the revival of teen pop during the late 1990s and early 2000s."

Her connection to pop is integrated in a relevant way rather than having American pop singer in the first sentence. I believe South Korean girl groups should follow the same lead. For example, in the Blackpink article K-pop is mentioned prominently in the lead:

"Blackpink is a South Korean girl group formed by YG Entertainment. The group is composed of four members: Jisoo, Jennie, Rosé, and Lisa. They are stylistically associated with the "girl crush" concept in K-pop, which explores themes of self-confidence and female empowerment."

Both of these examples get immediate mentions of the prominent genres they operate in and their place within the context of that genre, which is the way we should be handling this in my opinion. Putting K-pop in the first sentence is not necessary. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well articulated, this is what I support. seefooddiet (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I also support what Flabshoe1 said. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can also support this. I've gradually understood that not relegating K-pop as a simple term to put together with girl group could actually benefit the lead by developping the K-pop connection in a second paragraph, for exemple.

Especially because groups that are associated with K-pop have leads that seem, to me, as mostly filled with achievements and prizes. So there is space. It is just much more work, but it makes sense. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Excessive, just mention K-pop in the lede as @Flabshoe1 mentions. Even the definition of K-pop is hard to say and disputed. If we’re talking about Japanese or American, they naturally stray even farther from that definition, so I don’t see why it is relevant that its becoming an popular international genre. Keep it the way it is. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

While i do support Flabshoe1 as well, I want to say that putting it as a simple term was the less disputable version I could have imagined. I was clearly wrong. But when I'll try to even add the slightest controversy to a lead section while refering to K-pop I doubt it will go better. Despite definitions or analysis being sourced. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I get what you mean. This is why I mostly make/contribute to the pages of the SK films and production companies instead. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Korea:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fyi to anyone who might be ineterested, Shin Saimdang, Heo Nanseolheon, Queen Seondeok of Silla, Yu Gwan-sun, Nongae, Francesca Donner, and Park Geun-hye are all non-GA's. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What to do?

@Jae winwin: is active on a number of airport articles in Asia. It is an editor who never ever adds sources to an addition, never ever responded on attempts to communicate and often removes connection without explaining why. Very annoying, but he is not a vandal. After all, part of his edits are valid (removing start dates of new connections, removing connections after they ended). He has a talk page full of warnings but zero response. I tried to approach him in multiple languages, but zero response. I am at wits end, what do do next? The Banner talk 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Mobile edits, so possible a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation. In the past, a short block has been used to catch TCHY editors attention, however it is risky. This sort of editing seems common on airport articles at any rate. CMD (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: WP:TCHY is a possibility. However, this has been going on for months. You could report them to WP:ANI, or talk directly to an admin to get more guidance. - Ïvana (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

An earlier AN/I report led to nothing.

But seeing all my additions reverted, I would get curious at some point and want to know why... The Banner talk 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried sending an email via the "email this user" function? seefooddiet (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No mail address available. The Banner talk 02:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty likely they're just ignoring feedback. They've made over a thousand edits. Feel like some kind of sanction is appropriate, even if temporary just to get their attention. Surprised nothing was done seefooddiet (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kim Woo-jin#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kim Woo-jin#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 07:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

People names MOS

Just submitted a proposed modification to our people naming conventions guideline, see here.

Main takeaways:

It's largely the same as current guidelines, but with I think stronger theoretical backing on each of the decisions.
The technical details address several ambiguities that have previously caused confusion.
Hyphens in names only for South Korean people.
We recently decided to not use North Korean romanization. This means using MR for North Korean names and no spaces or hyphens between syllables in the given name, unless that's the known established English-language spelling.

For details on the research and reasoning, see this WIP essay. Also note that this MOS is still pending; follow the old MOS until it gets approved.

This was begrudgingly complicated, but hopefully this MOS will be clear for years to come. Let's hope one system eventually wins out in future; that'll let us simplify this. seefooddiet (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate here. Need to receive at least some approval before we can rewrite the people name section. seefooddiet (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, rewrite is completed: here. seefooddiet (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kim Hyo-yeon#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kim Hyo-yeon#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend putting move notices here if a move has been contested or needs more participation in order to pass seefooddiet (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting your participation in a discussion at Talk:Bang Chan

Hi WP:Korea, I'm hoping to solicit some further discussion regarding a manual of style question currently happening at Talk:Bang Chan. This is a newly created article, and there's been a bit of discussion amongst a few editors on this question but no consensus so far and things seem to be going a little in circles so it is my hope that notifying the project here will help.

The manual of style guideline in question is WP:SURNAME.

The question:

Does the name "Bang" in "Bang Chan" represent a reasonable approximation of a surname, and therefore he should be referred to as "Bang" when referencing his name after the first mention in the article,

or

Should the name "Bang Chan" be considered to be a stand-alone entity (a double mononym, if that makes any sense), and therefore he should always be referred to with the full name, as "Bang Chan", when referencing his name after the first mention in the article?

Thanks in advance. RachelTensions (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Big page moves

Just a heads up that per the new MOS, I think there are strong arguments to have Joseon be moved to Chosŏn [6]. Similar for Goryeo -> Koryŏ [7]. These moves would impact thousands of pages, including pages about contemporary pop culture that are related to Korean history. I haven't proposed these moves yet but I will soon. seefooddiet (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there might be some push back on this with WP:COMMONNAME... I'm not digging into the details right now but just a surface level search for "Joseon" vs. "Chosŏn" reports over 25 million results for "Joseon" but only 860k for "Chosŏn", and for news articles I see 537 for "Joseon" and only 37 for "Chosŏn". Might be a tough sell to prove that "Chosŏn" is the commonly used English romanization. RachelTensions (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, I have the same consideration in mind (and still am rolling over how to make the proposals before I make them) but I think there are strong cases for the moves. Keep in mind the preference for WP:RS in determining WP:COMMONNAME; academic papers and books still overwhelmingly prefer the use of MR. Even if numbers aren't on hand, the overwhelming practice in RS being known is already pretty suggestive. seefooddiet (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that academic and books might be weighted heavier than other sources, but as per your link to Google Books the two appear to be on a relatively even playing field, with "Chosŏn" having the slight advantage, but I'd argue that the still overwhelming general usage of "Joseon" would outweigh the other's slight advantage in academia. RachelTensions (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's save the rest of this discussion for the actual move. There'll be more to go through and the argument needs to be laid out properly seefooddiet (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just made one proposal: Talk:Joseon#Requested move 5 October 2024. seefooddiet (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joseon#Requested move 5 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joseon#Requested move 5 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

New MOS is ready

The new version of the MOS is finally ready!

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)

I'll be making it official in the near future by splitting it back into MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. If you have any concerns please voice them as soon as possible.

I think this is the first major overhaul the MOS has received since the first version of the MOS in 2004; it's nice to finally resolve a lot of repeated confusions we've had over the years.

Tl;dr of the major changes:

One goal was to reflect current practice; you probably won't notice tons of major changes. The changes are mainly meant to resolve the confusing edge cases.
Most changes you'll probably notice are for page titles.
- Pages for districts that have "-gu" will be moved to " District".
- Most pages impacted are about Korean history and North Korea. Unless WP:COMMONNAME is known, those pages should default to McCune–Reischauer, which asks for diacritics and no hyphenation or spaces in the given names of people.
- Many pages will probably get moved in quick succession. Each time a page is moved, any mentions of that page in other articles should also use that new spelling. Post a request at User:Seefooddiet/AWB requests and I can automatically update those spellings for you.
Whenever a template (like {{Infobox Korean name}}) asks for RR or MR, there should be no hyphens or spaces in given names. For South Korean people, that means their article title could be "Lee Ha-na", but their RR and MR should be "I Hana".
Do not put Hangul next to terms if they already have their own article (except if you're explaining etymology).
Do not put Hanja in the first parentheses for South Korea–related topics if the Hanja is already in {{Infobox Korean name}}.
A number of practices have become prohibited or discouraged:
- Using hyphens to disambiguate pronunciation (e.g. N Hae-undae).
- Displaying optional hyphens (e.g. N Hong Gil(-)dong or N Haeundae (Hae-undae)).
- Using title case for romanized titles of works. Instead, use sentence case (e.g. N Samguk Yusa Y Samguk yusa).
- Using the Korean calendar for dates. Instead, use the Gregorian or Julian calendar.
- Using tildes (~) for date ranges. Instead, use the endash (–).
Use Yale romanization for historical linguistics examples, use RR for the linguistics of modern Korean.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the new MOS! It was a big and difficult project; involved a lot of research and debate. Hoping that these clarifications and standardizations make using Wikipedia easier for you. seefooddiet (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Really nice work! I'm sorry to say I wasn't able to offer any input on this but I've seen what you've been working on and this is a great result. orangesclub 🍊 07:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a script that could go through and correct all instances hyphenation in RR and MR in Template:Infobox Korean name? I don't have any stats but I imagine the list of articles requiring updating will be quite large (maybe I'm wrong) RachelTensions (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we could use regex to do so with WP:AWB. I may implement that. seefooddiet (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I assumed beforehand that you would be running AWB to purge the hyphen from {{Infobox Korean name}} and {{Korean}}. Considering the payload, please do not configure the payload in alphabetical order run to avoid concurrent WP:WATCHLIST and WP:Email notification flooding. I also have AWB hence the configuration is doable. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; could you explain why alphabetical order specifically is not ok? Is any other order ok, or do you just not want to receive a lot of notifications because of AWB at all? seefooddiet (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're running in random order (that is not alphabetical order) at WP:BOTPERF speed, then you won't be flooding any of the editors' watchlist and also their email with the changes that you're making with AWB, but rather we should only be seeing selective bits of changes overtime rather than a truckload of changes immediately or literally over the days or weeks. The same logic applies for notifications as they are triggered by MediaWiki software concurrently alongside watchlist changes, because AWB is WP:BOTLIKE and not an actual bot hence T356984 doesn't applies here. A similar intensive/heated discussion took place at the bot's noticeboard previously for the {{Talk page banner}} and also {{WPBS}} changes for actual bot resulting in their temporary block due to the watchlist and email notification havoc it created. For clarification, this isn't about the ability to hide/unhide AWB tagged edits in the watchlist. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So the main issue is speed and volume and not alphabetical order? Like if I edited 40,000 pages in a day in random order it would still flood the watchlist. seefooddiet (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The overall payload is 35,190 pages for 1 run i.e. removing hyphen from both templates in a single edit only. Overall time taken at 20epm is 30 hours non-stop of clicking Save without resting, meaning 1,200 random order pages per hour. I doubt that you would be doing 30 hours non-stop without resting hence the pages per hour and risk of flooding would be lesser, assumption is around 300~600 random order pages per hour. I'm not asking for overall elimination of flooding from both watchlist and email notification as I know this won't be possible unless we request for an actual bot to perform this task which would eliminate the email notification flooding and watchlist is simply a filter click away. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I was just giving an extreme example to illusrate a point. I was trying to understand what specifically was the issue so I could avoid bothering you; to my understanding the use of alphabetical order shouldn't matter here. What matters is the volume of edits being made. seefooddiet (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that is not the only issue with RR and MR parameters in Korean-related templates. Ideally they should all be replaced with module-generated values. 172.56.232.246 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I just made the new MOS official. seefooddiet (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

More restrictive change regarding Wiktionary links