Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Can other people more knowledgeable than me help clean up Hyundai and all the related disambiguation pages, redlinks, templates, and plain wrong information? I worked on translating the main Hyundai template, and then noticed there were separate templates for different Hyundai groups, which need to be combined or organized somehow. I've worked on the Hyundai and Hyundai Group articles, which need more work. I think we can delete Hyundai Group (disambiguation) or redirect it to Hyundai Group. The article Hyundai should provide better guidance for readers who just typed Hyundai, probably looking for the car company or other specific Hyundai product. I'm not sure whether Hyundai or Hyundai Group should be the main article on the detailed history of the companies. It would be nice to have a complete chart of all the Hyundai companies, showing the histories and relationships. CronusXT 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to help, but I'm quite amazed at how uninformative the Hyundai article is. I am not an expert in Hyundai's history but I can do some research. Good friend100 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm really frustrated with sockpuppetting from both KPOV & JPOV accounts. We've lost several key WikiProject Korea editors who were found to be sockpuppets.

On the other hand, we've gathered evidence of JPOV Wikpidians mobilizing in forums such as 2ch.net. And they've been very smart in managing time, areas of interest, etc. so that the user accounts may not be tagged as sock puppets.

For example, when I submitted sockpuppet report for Opp2, I noticed that on his edit summary, he was virtually 24-hour working machine. I don't know how it's possible, but he has edited throughout all time zones. In other words, you don't even know in which time zone he lives. I believe that he's actually sock puppet controlled by several forum members at once.

Now, Opp2 is completely inactive. He's completely out of the Dokdo discussion. And guess what, new accounts pop up! They have absolutely 0 info on their user pages. They are the red accounts. Shroud00, SO, Yuje, etc. Hmm... Now that Opp2 has lost his credibility & disappeared, other accounts pop up around the same time! Suspicious?

Seriously, I have only few people I trust on Korean articles. So, GL HF! (Wikimachine 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

One of my goals in Wikipedia is to bring the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) to a featured article status. I would greatly appreciate any help given on research, uploading useful maps and battles, or simply correcting grammer, etc. Good friend100 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Good friend100, as for bringing Japanese invasions of Korea to featured article standard (which, by the way, was our agenda last year as well...), there's no way we can achieve this unless we can apply citation-per-factual statement mode of referencing. There are just too many POV's, rumors, and personal theories that are intermingled with the facts that there's no way to fix them under the status quo. Furthermore, whenever some "expert" adds his own personal craps, there's no way for users like us to check upon them; therefore, the article's constantly undergoing degradation. Finally, I think that the best I could do for the article is grammar & contents (very limited number of sources on this topic for me here), but I feel that they'd be fixed further by other "experts" (I've seen it happen).

We need lots of refs so that when an "expert" adds something, we can rush in, revert, and slam on the desk: "You are wrong, and this is why."

(Wikimachine 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

I think an article on Northeast Project should be created to keep the Goguryeo article, as well as many other Korean kingdoms claimed by the Chinese government, clean from edit wars. By doing so, we can limit all the recent claims by the Chinese government within the Northeast Project article. We can also give readers proper context by providing explanations on other related historical distortions of the Chinese government, such as the Southwest Project(Tibet) and Northwest Project(East Turkestan). So, any suggestions?

I went on and created the article anyway. I think it would be a good idea to reroute all the controversy in Goguryeo and other related article to that particular article. It gives better context. Cydevil 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very smart move. (Wikimachine 20:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

User: 69.91.40.233 I am almost certain is Ming-Loyalist The slang term being "chinnazi" . Cydevil Might know who im talking about. He is deleting material on Yang Manchun and articles his edits are full of POV like "Goguryeo army was totally annilhated out by a mere 5,000 Chinese army" etc and added a controvesy section, he uses soley Chinese sources. As it is you guys will have to work this out I won't be able to sign in for a while. Jegal 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's Ming_Loyalist. He'd be a more extremist. However, there is a certain active Chinese nationalist who lives in Houston, Texas. Cydevil 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From looking at many history-related Korean articles like Go Mosu, some Korean editors have taken the liberty of citing controversial sources like Hwandan Gogi. As much as I hope that those sources may someday be authenticated and verified as reliable sources to enrich Korean history, I must insist that as long as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, we should refrain from citing such sources to make what would be articles that contain very controversial material. Has there been any coherent policy on citing sources like Hwandan Gogi? Cydevil 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A respectable Wikipedian Nlu has resquested for Rfc on Korea history for KPOV. Could you guys comment on this? (Wikimachine 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

This is just wrong. A bunch of Chinese extremists persistently vandalize the Goguryeo article, and Nlu is completely silent to those Chinese extremists even though some of them make blatant racist attacks. Also, speaking of "KPOV", he believes the current Goguryeo article is "anti-Chinese" despite the fact that the article is well up to the NPOV standards coherent with neutral sources of authority. Cydevil 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, how he's dealing with the matter matters for now. I also think that there's lots of KPOV, too, and CPOV & JPOV. But getting rid of one more POV would be better than nothing, and this is request for comments. What's so wrong about listening to outside opinions? (Wikimachine 13:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Are you talking about KPOV, CPOV, JPOV in general, or that Goguryeo is KPOV? If the latter is the case, then I'd strongly disagree. Anyways, as for many other articles, I'd definitely agree there's a lot of KPOV, especially those materials that cite Hwandan Gogi and other controversial texts as its source. Cydevil 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to solicit discussion on whether to use "South Korea" or "Korea, South" as category sort keys at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)#Sort keys for categories. YooChung 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor Korea, South or better yet, Korea, Republic(the most accurate). North Korea would be Korea, Democratic People's Republic, or Korea, North. I think those two are more suitable for readers because when there is a alphabetical list of countries, readers can just search for Korea and choose from either ROK or DPRK which are right next to eachother. Cydevil 13:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I love both of the alternatives. (Wikimachine 13:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Why not Republic of Korea (ROK), I like that alternative the best. Good friend100 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if comments were made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)#Sort keys for categories so as to keep the discussion in one place. TIA. YooChung 05:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu is attempting to mediate the dispute in Goguryeo article, and I find many of his proposals biased and unacceptable. Also, I find it very unfair that Goguryeo article has to be distorted with a Chinese bias just because some Chinese extremists are engaging in edit warring. I think this requires some top priority attention from WP:KO. Cydevil 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The results are what I fear the most. Mediators' top priority is to stop the warring and stablize the article. I'm not trying to be rude to mediators but their knowledge of Goguryeo and its history is less than what we have. Most likely, they will simply conclude that "Goguryeo is neither Korean or Chinese" to stop the warring. This statement is obviously not true. Even the modern politics section in the Goguryeo article have prominent facts that Goguryeo is Korean. Good friend100 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That's exactly right! That's why I hesitated in giving up Dokdo article to mediation. At the same time, I think what Nlu is doing is legitimate & he stays cool. If we were to not participate in his initiatives, then the situation would be whole lot worse because the Goguryeo article would look as if there is some sort of Korean lobbying & as if the editors opposing the CPOV are KPOV & therefore the mediators will be unwilling to take sides on both POV's and ultimately draw conclusions on their own. Try to be more like the JPOV editors, who stay cool all the time (except Opp2) & use the administration as a tool. That is not to say that we should try to take advantage of the rules, but I want to emphasize the importance of being cool-headed & looking more acceptable & open-minded. (Wikimachine 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Agree, at least Nlu stays and directs his efforts to resolving the fighting. I wonder how most admins would start pulling their hair at the discussion in the Goguryeo talk page. Good friend100 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation has been filed for Goguryeo, Balhae and Northeast Project. Those interested please join. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo Cydevil 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited & discussed in the Goguryeo article for long enough to participate in the mediation, but anytime you guys think that CPOV becomes too overwhelming to bear, let me know, so that I can use legitimate means to correct any bias or disadvantage. I've already participated in 3 mediations, so I think I'm good. (Wikimachine 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Even the Korean history template is now a disputed article in the mediation, added by an anon-IP whom I suspect to be Yeahsoo. This is getting more and more ridiculous. Cydevil 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I drop all of my previous comments on the Goguryeo article. The editor called Ksyrie is very dangerous, and extremely CPOV. The situation's very dire, guys, and whatever that happens on the Goguryeo article will set precedence for other Korean historical articles to be overturned by Chinese points of view. It's an SOS. (Wikimachine 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I understand your efforts at the Goguryeo talk page and in general housekeeping around Korean related articles, however Wikiproject Korea is not to be used for reinforcement and support to "fight" the other party. The best way is to simply ignore POV editors who supply POV claims.

Remember, wikipedia is to make the articles better. The debate is really on whether or not Goguryeo was Korean or Chinese and does nothing. I'm not trying to discourage you, just keep a cool head and don't react to things before thinking. Good friend100 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. At the same time, just in case any CPOV editors want to use this post to discret me or the wikiproject, I'd like to say that I was only communicating with those actually within the dispute (it would be very unpractical for me to go to each one of the 10 user talk pages). (Wikimachine 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

I adjusted the Navigation Bar on the main project space slightly (to eliminate the white spaces and the weird shape). Anyone have trouble with it? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section is now too crowded with non-text: the shortcut box, navigation bar, and image are all bunched up together. I also think the navigation bar is too wide to be a floating table (instead of the centered non-floating table it was before). Kiersta 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While trying to clean up the to do list, I realized that there didn't seem to be any criteria for including an entry in the to do list. Including everything that needed improvement would obviously make it far too large. There's also no criteria for removing entries from the list, making it uncertain when other people's additions may be removed (which seems to result in a slowly growing and unbounded list). I would like to propose using a to do list which link to larger pages by task.

I built such a to do list at User:Kiersta/Korea to do. This list also links to the non-existant Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Cleanup, which could serve a similar role as Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Redlist, but for existing pages that need to be cleaned up. (Linked to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Korea instead.) User:Kiersta/To do test compares the proposed to do list and the current to do list. I would like to make sure that people don't object to the proposed list before replacing the current one. Kiersta 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you're doing is much better than the current one. However, I thought that the to-do list that fits in the template boxes should be small enough & easy to access - that is, people should be able to look at the to-do list & then get started on it. Setting up a bureaucratic way of presenting the to-do list would be unproductive. So, however putting your form as "more"? (Wikimachine 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

What do you mean with your last question? Kiersta 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Like, "This is only a selected portion of the to-do lists. Click here for a larger to-do list." Also, maybe we could have only the high-priority articles in the selected portion. (Wikimachine 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Do we have a larger to do list? (Actually, I think that every link in my proposed list is a much larger to do list for each area. ^_^;;) I'm also experimenting with including specific articles in the to do list in User:Kiersta/Korea to do with articles (the instructions will not be transcluded in the WikiProject page or banners). It attempts to limit the number of listed articles by specifying an explicit expiration date instead of using inclusion criteria. Kiersta 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to think that the proposed list is worse than the old one, so I went ahead and replaced it. Feel free to include important articles that need to be worked on in the list. The included instructions state that entries should be removed after a month, so I won't have to worry about offending someone when I try to clean up the list. ;) Kiersta 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely amazing! I love it! Thanks for the work. (Wikimachine 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Indeed -- nice additions. Thank you. Mumun 無文 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding Korea history (talk · contribs)'s behavior on WP:ANI. Per the suggestion of another administrator, due to his/her involvement in editing Korea-related articles, I am requesting interested parties to comment on his/her behavior there. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What did he do? Good friend100 15:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. (Wikimachine 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't know if this allowed or not.

Anyway What is a good name for a Korean History Forum? And would some of you KoreanWikipedians like to be MODs? Jegal 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it? (Wikimachine 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

......A forum Im asking for Korean Wikipedians to be MODs. http://koreanhistory.forumwise.com/index.php?sid=942f497c1720c4fbcc6cdb8749a40f4f Jegal 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thats cool, it looks like you have good knowledge in internet site...I'm interested. Good friend100 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I put up a peer review for the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Check the talk page for a link to the peer review. Hopefully, we can get some good comments and suggestions to make the article better and bring it up to featured article status. Good friend100 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not confirmed anything, but I am positive that users Cydevil and Nlu are operated by the same editor. Keep an eye on both, and I'd be greateful if editors or admins looked into this. Oyo321 11:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm what are you talking about? Nlu is an admin and they are both oh the opposite sides of the argument. Don't make accusations without evidence. Good friend100 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole "you're a sockpuppet" thing is becoming too much. On every talkpage I'm at, someone is "accused" of being a sockpuppet. *sigh* oncamera^(t) 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What's up with people who have this "Image:Samjogo (jian).gif" on their talk pages? Just joking. (Wikimachine 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

I used to be able to find it, but for now the directions on how to assess articles is gone. (Wikimachine 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

I usually click on the "quality" and "priority" links in the WikiProject banner to look at how articles should be rated (which means I need to fill some arbitrary rating and use the preview). The documentation for {{korean}} includes the instructions on how the ratings should be written down. Kiersta 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we copy-paste that info unto the "Assess an article" link at the Korean template? (Wikimachine 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

That's probably a good idea. In fact, I'll do something similar right now. Kiersta 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with romanization of Hangul, but there appear to be a trifecta of articles about the same person at Midang, So chungju, and Sŏ Chŏng-ju. I'm not sure if there are more. Although the second title is clearly incorrect, I'm not clear as to what the right title would be (Seo Jeong-ju?). Particularly since there is merging to be done, I thought I would mention it here in the hopes that a more knowledgeable editor can straighten things out. Dekimasuよ! 12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all three of them are about the same person.

If there is a better place to list this so that the articles can be merged, please let me know. Or if someone can at least tell me which title is the most appropriate, I can go ahead and do it myself. Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Seo Jeong-ju [1] should be the main article; just merge them and re-direct all those to that article. oncamera^(t) 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I finished the merge and moved the page to Seo Jeong-ju per this advice. Hope it looks okay. Dekimasuよ! 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I propse deletion, and/or move and fixation of the Timeline of the Imjin War. First of all, the title is not in accordance with the consensus reached over the title of the Imjin War, the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), and secondly the content is KPOV in that it deals with the biographical details of the major Korean historical figures concerned with the war. First of all, personal biographies has nothing to do with a war time line. Secondly, the historical characters from other nations - Japan and China, should be treated just as much as the Korean characters in their contents. (Wikimachine 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Should be fixed so that it is more NPOV and inclusive of the Japanese timeline. Many editors have contributed, looks worthwhile, is comprehensive, and is informative in its current state --Mumun 無文 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I think that WP:KO should have some sort of vote process for giving out barnstars for hard work. By examining user's edit history, etc., we should award the ones who made Korean articles better. Let me tell you first that admin Visviva did a lot to make the Korean articles "possible". He's basically inactive for now, but I think the reason is that writing articles about Korea on Wikipedia lose meaning for people when they do it too much or they observe that nothing much comes out of it. Another person coming to mind is Kiersta. If you look at his edits, he joined this month, but he's done a lot to keep WikiProject Korea running. (Wikimachine 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I think there are many editors who deserve a barnstar for their hard work, whether it be on the main space, talk page, or keeping things tidy here~ Also, is it possible for WP:KO to make their own barnstar like the ones on these pages? Geographic, WikiProject awards. oncamera^(t) 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make a WP:KO award. How about using the Collaboration of the Month logo? (Wikimachine 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Sure. And after reading WP:BAP, it probably be easier to have it on Personal User Awards, unless someone wants to go through the paperwork in proposing it as a WP barnstar. oncamera^(t) 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we might not even need a WP:KO award. Too many extraneous stuffs on Wikipedia.(Wikimachine 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

One thing I noticed was that on many talk pages, wikiproject templates fill the first full screen height. I think it's really ridiculous, and actually want to congradulate WP:JP for reducing their template size. Let's do the same. WP:KO isn't doing all that good of work in comparison to other wikiprojects, I think, (I mean we are but not enough people, not large enough, etc.), but seems as if we want to show off the most. That's not how it should be.

The grading stuffs in addition to the edit instructions make our template about 1/3 the size of my computer screen. I don't like that at all. Could somebody who's good at editing templates make it extremely condensed and small? The problem is that there is a small version of our template, however we can't go around replacing all korean templates with small=yes korean templates, can we? (Wikimachine 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Is it possible to just copy-paste most of the Japan template over the Korea one because there's another issue here with the current one. oncamera^(t) 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Assessment, not with {{korean}}. I don't think it's a problem because there's no need for {{korean}} to do {{ga}}'s job. Simply copying over {{WPJ}} is also going to break much of the categorization that {{korean}} does.

I'd be willing to rewrite the blurb so that's it's shorter if everyone agrees what should be in it. My suggestion is an invitation similar to {{WPJ}}, ratings and working group information in a small font, and removing one of the images (maybe the one on the left?). I had considered rewriting the blurb during my rewrite of {{korean}}, but decided not to unilaterally change it since I didn't know whether many people found the embedded links useful. YooChung 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the assessment is a pretty good idea. It gives us means to connect all Korean articles together. It's like, I don't know what's been written & what's not b/c there are so many different ways to make a title for a Korea-related article, but there are not enough redirects. I just don't want all the links to editing Korean articles. Links to "Assess an article", "Portal:Korea", etc. are useful, though. It allowed me to assess articles much more quickly than I'd have without the assess feature. (Wikimachine 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Aren't everything under "Korea-related tasks" normally hidden, so their size shouldn't be much of an issue here? I'm a little confused since you're mentioning the "Assess an article" link. (It starts out hidden in Safari 2, IE6, and Firefox 2. As a side note, the tasks are a transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/to do.) YooChung 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about "Community: Discussion - Notice board", "Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions", and "Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal" - all of which could be hidden or deleted. (Wikimachine 02:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Is there an article about the naval history of Korea? If there isn't one, I will make a new article on it. Good friend100 13:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made Naval history of Korea. Good friend100 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Joseon Navy is the one. (Wikimachine 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but the naval history of korea covers the naval history of the entire korea. Good friend100 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An IP editor at Sungkyun Language Institute insists on adding names of individual instructors to the page (including a cross-namespace redirect linking to the userpage of the editor who started the article, and nicknames like Valentin "Most likely to edit this page next" Macias). He has reverted my edits twice, including reverting the ambiguous links I fixed and my proposal to merge the article with Sungkyunkwan University. I referred him to WP:COI to no apparent effect. Please provide your thoughts, if you have the time. Dekimasuよ! 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding non-relevant material, or attempting to insert material which is considered as such without using the talk page to discuss is vandalism, pure and simple. The article should be merged with the main article of the university. Because we are talking about one of the oldest educational institutions in the world, such behaviour is all the more unacceptable. If this continues we can report the user to the persistent vandal or incident boards. Also, let's try to reduce trollish behaviour (as per WP:TROLL) and avoid feeding this user, who has shown trollish tendencies, and who seem to want to raise a ruckus in the rumpus room -- I believe the user Jpbarass is here only to cause trouble. ^^ --Mumun 無文 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A move request is currently underway at Talk:Cheonji lake, to which I would value contributions from members of this project. --Stemonitis 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check out new article Workers Party of North Korea. I myself do not speak Korean, and have difficulty adding material from Korean sources. For example I'm interested to know if there is material at the Korean wiki articles ko:북조선로동당 제2차당대회 and ko:북조선로동당 제1차당대회 worth adding to the article. Also, the article lacks images, is there anywhere one could find PD/fair use images of party congress, press, propaganda material or pictures of leaders of the party at the time? --Soman 08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some further changes to the template in an attempt to reduce its size. I reduced the size of the picture (because it's a tall picture, it captures more space then a picture with similar size but shorter). I also changed the To Do slightly. Feel free to adjust my change! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I love it! Thanks a lot! Wikimachine 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Port Hamilton. I am proposing that the modern English name of the island respects the native name, which is spelled "Komundo" by the U.S. government, and "Geomun-do" by South Korea. "Port Hamilton" is a WW2-era name for Geomun-do, like "Quelpart Island" used to be for Jeju-do (note the South Korean spelling, not the U.S. government spelling Cheju Island). Google and other sources show that "Port Hamilton" now should be about a Canadian port. Please comment on the proposed move of "Port Hamilton" to the proper modern name "Geomun-do".WikiWitchWest 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some articles related to early Korean history and archaeology use BC/AD and others use BCE/CE...and some use both in the same article, e.g. Korean Three Kingdoms. Is there a policy or guideline that is in use here regarding the use of BCE - CE / BC - AD? --Mumun 無文 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:DATE#Eras: Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article. --Kusunose 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Do editors have any particular preference? In the interest of having one standard, I'm willing to go through the said articles in an attempt to change all calendrical dates, whether they be BC - AD or BCE - CE, to one or the other -- although it may take a while. Some of us may object to BC-AD owing to its associations with the West and the Judeo-Christian world (but I don't mean to overly complicate things) and so I would like to be cautious and heed anyone who has strong ideas. If anyone has preferences, leave them below. Mumun 無文 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with switching all articles one way or another ("When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."). It is, however, important to get the mixed articles fixed to one or the other. —LactoseTI^T 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate the massacre has been done by a Korean

Feel sorry for the victims and I'm simply ashamed that this act was carried out

by a Korean college student. Good friend100 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did he even go to a college? (Wikimachine 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Can someone please declare that the person who shot many people in Virginia Tech was not a full Korean, because he came and grew in America since when he was 8. I cannot stand seeing a country "defamed" by the insane man, who does not deserve to be even called a korean.

Ehh.... I kind of agree with you. You're on the right track. Roger. (Wikimachine 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes I totally agree, but you can't "declare" something on a article, it would be rather inappropriate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Do you guys mind if I convert the Korean project-related information into a sidebar (like in WP:INDIA) ? It might look better, but that's my opinion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(SIMILAR MESSAGE PLACED ON ARTICLE TALK PAGE]. The long lists, large empty spaces, and underdeveloped sections detract from what should be a showcase article.

• Do the order of sections as they stand serve the article well? I suggest that the order of main sections be reviewed and possibly changed in order to present basic information about this university.
• I think that the Organisation section, a list of faculties, is critical. However, does the section itself need to be so high up in the article? How would it be if we placed the History section above the Organisation section?
• The Organisation section, a list of faculties, is presented in list form, which makes it long. How would it be if we keep it in the main article and present the lists in TWO columns (sorry but I'm not sure how to do this!). There could be other solutions as well. Anyone?
• The history section remains underdeveloped. As per the previous message I left on the talk page I urge editors who are more knowledgeable than I in this matter to add sourced text. -- Mumun 無文 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt need a list of faculties... thats pretty ridiculous. (Wikimachine 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

I was hoping to find some information about when the first knowledge of Korea by europeans occurred, and equally, on when Koreans became aware of european culture and history. I see a great deal in WP about european contacts with Japan, and with china, but nothing on this. (The Christianity in Korea article has information about Gregorious de Cespedes in 1593, and there is an excellent article about Islam in Korea which discusses contacts with west Asia. I'll look here for any help you can offer. DGG 07:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I'm positive that Korea was first known to Europeans during and around the Unified Silla and Balhae dynasties and also the Goryeo dynasty. Trade and culture was at its zenith during Unified Silla and the silkroad opened Korea to European traders who visited Korea as well as China.

Also, the word "Korea" was first introduced to westerners when they gained knowledge of Goryeo, which is where the modern word "Korea" has come from. Good friend100 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a freely-licenced picture of 쉬리 (aka Coreoleuciscus splendidus)? No luck on Flickr, where "Swiri" gets you nothing relevant and "Shiri" gets you the occasional photo of someone's posterior. Thanks, cab 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me, but I have revised the Template: Korean History to include Jeulmun Pottery Period and Mumun Pottery Period. Mumun 無文 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Groovy! Though in the interests of brevity and not top-loading the template too much, I wonder if we can drop the word "pottery" ... -- Visviva 07:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! Dropped "pottery" in the template. Mumun 無文 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought this page would be best to catch the interest of someone who can read Korean. If this is not the case, please direct this note to the proper space.

In the article Video game content rating system, the Korean rating board Korea Media Rating Board is an anomaly. It has two ratings for the same age group, "Adult", which are "Restricted" and "18+". The Wikipedia article should state why this is the case. It could be the result of several things, such as the "R" rating being legally enforceable and "18+" not, or a different suffrage age in Korea. My knowledge of Korea is very limited, but I think the website of the KMRB could have some useful information. However, the English version of that website is severely handicapped, both in information and site accessibility.

I would very much appreciate it if a Korean could look into this problem, and respond here, on my talk page, or on Video game content rating system's talk page. Thanks in advance!

On a related note, while I am here, I wonder whether the KMRB covers both North- and South Korea. If so, is this in theory only, or an example of international cooperation?

--User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the Korean site and help with the article. Good friend100 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And to answer your question, KMRB probably doesn't cover NK. North Korea -as you probably know already- doesn't have interest in electronics and technology. And most of the technolog NK has is in Pyongyang. I doubt that South Korea covers both North Korea. North Korea doesn't make any games. Good friend100 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A new naming dispute has arisen in talk:Dokdo. I'd like for everyone to participate. (Wikimachine 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Hey all, the Daiwon C&A Holdings article needs serious help from someone who speaks Korean. Whoever started the initial article just copied information from the Viz Media article, including many statements that are true regarding Viz but do not apply to Daiwon at all. Since I don't speak Korean it is difficult for me to research what information is true and what is false. Maybe someone could translate the Korean Wikipedia article? —pfahlstrom 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll check. Good friend100 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you need? Good friend100 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of all information in the article which is false—there's a lot of it. Verification with Korean sources of all information which is true. Unfortunately, though I can immediately identify some of the false information (such as that they published PULP), a lot of the falsehoods are difficult to separate from the truths unless you can read Korean to get the real information from places like Daiwon's website. For example, I highly doubt that Daiwon is owned by all those Japanese companies that the article says own it. —pfahlstrom 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer is trying to finalize the Dokdo move to Liancourt Rocks by reverting my edits to the talk, which are data challenging the false accusation of meat puppetry on Dokdo advocates' side. "wait 6 months" and "please" as his gesture of subordination. I'd like for the WikiProject editors to see that Philip Baird Shearer is provoking for a revert war, unnecessarily, and take affirmative actions. (Wikimachine 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm asking permission to use these and make a new article with a disambiguation for hwa and a redirect for gibun and nunchi. I found an excellent article on it that will flesh it out beyond it's current status. Since all three interact and are of the same category, I think it would be a good idea. But I'm not sure what to title it--Korean paralanguage, or like the Japanese article on Tatemae and Honne, individually. --Hitsuji Kinno 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a poll on a proposed article move at Wokou. Poll options include:

• Move to Japanese pirates
• Move to Wakō
• Move to Wōkòu
• Keep at Wokou

Please vote if you have an opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people here may be interested in a new proposal to retitle Sinmiyangyo "Korean Expedition of 1871". Very similar proposals have been discussed before, indeed as recently as three days ago; but all the discussion was summarily shoved into the article's talk archive 1 the day before yesterday. I'd recommend reading it before expressing your reasoned opinion on the proposed name change at Talk:Sinmiyangyo. (Or perhaps the rules have been [unilaterally] set in such a way that none of you is invited ... I'm not quite sure.) -- Hoary 04:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[[2]]

please offer your opinion on whether the current title for Goguryeo-China Wars is good or not. Good friend100 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See [3]. Only WikiProject Korea's box cannot show class when grouped. Does anybody want to fix that? Thanks. (Wikimachine 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I believe the current template {{Korean}} has several problems regarding its functionality, appearance, and back-end coding. Hence, I decided to re-write it from scratch. I created new template on {{Korean_2}}. I'm still working on it (doesn't support working groups yet and a few things to polish) I really hope this can be used and helpful, so please give me your advice/opinions on this new template. Thank you. eDenE 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's much more elegant, thanks. {{Korean}} is much older than most Wikiproject templates, and has developed a rather serious case of Old Farmhouse Syndrome, with all sort of miscellaneous additions tacked on over time. Remodeling is definitely in order, so thank you once again for taking on this task... To save unnecessary grief, it would probably be best to paste this code into {{Korean}} once it's all ready. Since changing that template has a certain impact on the job queue, please post here once you think it's ready, just so folks can give it a final once-over. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Template looks good. Mumun 無文 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it's ready to go - {{Korean_2}}. I've added some examples on the page, so please check them out. This template should be able to replace the current one with no problem. For the background colours of quality and importance, I tried to follow Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment with some variations. After this I'm going to work on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/to_do and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/to_do/Major_tasks. eDenE 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All these are absolutely amazing! Bravo! P.S. I'd like for you guys to add the following "qualities": WikiProject, list, category, etc. P.S. 2. Could you make the template as small as possible? Some users including me complained about how large our template was & how most of the talk page overflows with just the loading of the templates. (Wikimachine 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

I've added List and Category class as you requested. But I'm not so sure about WikiProject, since Project class already exists. Regarding the size of the template, I'm planning to change "Korea-related tasks" section which probably contains some useless links that users never use and can be shortened. eDenE 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it works! No. "Project" works, but not "Category" nor "List". I guess you were meaning it for Korean 2 (Wikimachine 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello all. I have discovered the following reference to isolationist policies of 16th-17th c Joseon Korea: "From the perspective of some Koreans, Japan's policy appeared quite liberal. Korea, of course, could trade through its land border with China, but its maritime policies were more restrictive than Japan's. By the mid-18th century some Korean reformers who favored contact with the West looked favorably on Japan's trade administration through Nagasaki precisely because of its openness to the West through the Dutch." (Wray, William. “The 17th Century Japanese Diaspora: Questions of Boundary and Policy.” Thirteenth International Economic History Congress, Buenos Aires 2002. Preconference: Corfu, Greece, 21-22 September 2001. pp14-15.)

Can anyone tell me more about this? Just how tight were Korea's policies towards Western traders, missionaries, or emissaries in this period? I'm not looking for a whole pile of books or anything, just a brief description somewhere, to help me confirm the accuracy of Wray's statement and such. Any help or information would be most appreciated. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairly tight, not that Westerners were exactly knocking Korea's doors down trying to get in either. The canonical example here is Hendrick Hamel (and his shipmates), who were shipwrecked on Jeju in the 17th century. There is a great website about him here. Actually the history of Joseon's foreign relation is much more complex than it's usually given credit for, though I don't have a good source to point you to. At any rate, I would be more curious about Wray's support for the apparent claim that some Silhak reformers were looking to Japan as a model in the 18th century; if true, that would certainly be interesting. -- Visviva 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; maybe I should just check out Wray's sources - that's likely a good start. On the 18th century reformers, he cites Kang, Etsuko Hae-jin. Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Century. London: MacMillan, 1997. pp195-6. Sorry I don't know anything more than that. LordAmeth 09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is a move request for Goguryeo-China Wars to be moved to Military history of Goguryeo. Please vote and offer your opinion on the subject here Talk:Goguryeo-China wars, thanks. Good friend100 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be one of our top-priority articles for the summer but due to a hectic summer shedule I won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia like I would like to but I will try to work on this article. Also if you use an excerpt from a book how do you source it? Jegal 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Brief excerpts from books can be quoted verbatim; for details on sourcing see WP:CITE. Good luck! By the way I took the liberty of fixing the title in the heading, in order to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. Cheers, -- Visviva 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see an example of a book excerpt at Barley. The excerpt comes from Household Cyclopedia and...it may be a bit too long. Mumun 無文 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, for public-domain sources the rules can be stretched somewhat. -- Visviva 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be the Collaboration of the Month. The Imjin War has been the monthly project for months I want to eventually work on this article but im currently gathering research. Does anyone else agree? Jegal 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of changing the collaboration of the month. Too many distraction w/ POV disputes & simply many of us either don't have access the university research or are a bit lazy. (Wikimachine 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Seems like a good idea. Normally the idea of a collaboration of the month is that it, you know, changes every month.  ;-) -- Visviva 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You could, but the whole point of having a collaboration of the month would be gone if we change it every month & don't accomplish much. Actually, the amount of discussion it takes to choose a new collaboration of the month article would exhaust this community. I rather think that we should get the invasion article to FA status & then move on. Unless it's something definite, a lot of things here get mottled down by POV, other nationalists, kindergarten/elementary professors, etc. (Wikimachine 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, go ahead. I either didn't get or ignored Jegal's enthusiasm & willingness to create this article on the condition that everyone else would too. I think that there is a lot of literature on this topic on the web, so this can easily be done. I myself want to put this as the collaboration of the month article, but I don't know how the templates work. Visviva, do you? (Wikimachine 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Hey all, check out this link http://koreanhistory.forumwise.com/koreanhistory-post-381.html#381 I have a bunch of links and book sources for us to work off of, any member who is a member of the forum and contribute to what should be included or on this disussion page whatever suits best. Jegal 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose I'm the only one who noticed that the article is spelled wrong? :D Jegal 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Flickr images public domain? Jegal 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No. They are the intellectual property of the individual photographers. However, if you contact and ask the individual photographers, they may be willing to release their images. LordAmeth 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So is this an unoffical monthly article? people should come contribute some good work is coming along, what we really need is pictures. Jegal 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluefootedbooby/389279723/#comment72157600647090478 this user has allowed us to use her images as long as we give her credit. Jegal 23:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what type of mountain the Korea mountains are? Are they block mountains or fold mountains. I'm inclined to believe that they are block mountains, but that would indicate that was no subduction, and I don't know if that's entirely true. It's bothering the piss out of me because I can't find the information anywhere. --Bentonia School 09:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question... according to Geology of Japan, the mountains of Japan were formed through subduction, so I would be inclined to think that the same is true of the (older) mountains of the Korean Peninsula. I'll see if I can find some better sources; odd that we don't have Geology of Korea yet. -- Visviva 11:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be out of place, but we need some fresh commentors, as most of it is the same people going back and forth. There is currently a Request for Comments going on at Talk:Korean War. The more neutral commentators we have, the better. Thank you. wbfergus 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Uriginal absolutely ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the current template {{Korean}} with {{Korean_2}}. I've tested dozens of times, and seems like it has no problem substituting the current one. Please visit {{Korean_2}} to see examples and throw me your thoughts. I will replace it 70 hours from now, unless someone complains or finds any issues with this. Thank you. eDenE 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to just replace it now, it looks great inside & out... but I'll leave it up to you. -- Visviva 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing! Like I said on talk page - keep it up. (Wikimachine 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Looks great, but it isn't categorizing articles by quality or importance like the old one did. Also, would it be better to have the quality and importance ratings in bold text? PC78 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, a couple more things. :) The template is now categorizing article by quality and importance, but it isn't sorting those categories by quality and importance as it should be. Additionally, why does the template link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment? It doesn't seem all that relevant since we're using own own assessment scales. (Made that change myself, so you can blame me if it's not done right!) PC78 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I referenced other templates and most of them have links to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Of course, since WikiProject Korea has its own scales, I think your approach is more appropriate. Thank for the change. Regarding sorting categories, I'll look up old template and see how it's been working and try to fix it. eDenE 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template so sorting is now working. Even though quality scale is alphabetic, I used numbers to make sure they show up first. (* for feature, 1 for A, 2 for B ... 6 for Unstable 7 for Misc (project, cate, list, etc)) It now also categorizes working groups properly.eDenE 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed in September 2006 that Zen Teacher/Zen Master be merged into Zen, but no discussion was made of it. If you are interested, please discuss here. JohnnyMrNinja 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated to do page to reduce its size. Also, I merged to do/Major tasks into to do/Institutions, since they are very small pages and separating them is not necessary.

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/to_do/Institutions contains wide paragraph and tables, I added a few #ifeq to reduce its width when small=yes is passed (i.e. when {{Korean|small=yes}} is called). But it is not working as I expected. Can anyone look over the following pages and possibly fix the problem? {{Korean}}, to do, and to do/Institutions.

The following lines pass small=yes parameter:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/to do|small={{{small|no}}}}} in {{Korean}}
• {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/to do/Institutions|small={{{small|no}}}}} in to do

Thanks in advance. eDenE 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this issue by creating to do/Institutions/Small. Due to wiki's limitation, it's not possible to include pages with m:ParserFunctions. eDenE 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to congradulate the editors who made the template a lot better. Your efforts are appreciated by other people.

Anyways, who is allowed to rate articles? I'd like to rate articles, but not sure if I'm allowed to. Good friend100 11:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone. I've rated all articles from . to 0 to A to mid-C. You could help. All other wikiprojects have majority of their articles rated. (Wikimachine 03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC))