Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Congrats on forming a WikiProject! I'm considering placing my name on the participants list, joining the Project, but as a Japanese studies major, I'm not sure how much I could contribute. Nevertheless, I do intend to continue cleaning up & expanding the articles on the Imjin War, and defending Korea's involvement in the early cultural development of Japan. If anything should come up that I can somehow help out with, please feel free to give a shout. Good luck! Keep up the good fight! LordAmeth 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the support guys. Also thank you to LordAmeth for a great intro for this Wikirproject. I hope this project page can start becoming a lot better. Good friend100 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all interested editors: Currently, we are discussing what picture to use as the template picture. Several are being debated. Currently, the Gyeongbokgung picture is being used.

Also, there are several candidates for the template. If anyone has any suggestions or comments, please list below. Remember to state what template you support. Good friend100 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are only two users (maybe 3?) but I will vote anyways!!! yay!

My Gyeongbokgung Print: this is print of Gyeongbokgung. I equally support all pics, but I like this one especially b/c of its high contrast. It looks really nice at small resolution. (Wikimachine 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The templates would look nicer if you merged part of the Portal: Korea template into it. What I mean by "part" is the "tasks you can help with" kind of thing. It will make the template look larger. One reason why the current template looks awkward is that the picture is really large, but there are not enough contents in the template itself for the template to be artistically proportioned. (Wikimachine 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with you. If you can merge the portal and wikiproject template together, that will make it better. Good friend100 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why not simply add the WikiProject to {{korean}}? It seems to me that any Talk page "within the scope of WikiProject Korea" is also within the general scope of Coreana. Furthermore, hundreds (thousands?) of articles have already been tagged with {{korean}}; so you can save a lot of work by simply changing that template slightly. Also that would avoid havng two gigantic redundant templates on top of each other. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just followed my own advice and added it under the "How you can help" section. Is that sufficient? -- Visviva 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I am not really good with templates but I hope we can start improving articles =) Good friend100 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, as more editors decide to join, I would like to inform you of the priorities we have on Wikiproject Korea.

• Cleanup to do list
• vote on template (remember to thank Wikimachie for helping out)
• start working on new articles!

thanks Good friend100 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are very limited. First off, our quantity of members is too small yet to make a signicant impact and growth on Korea-related articles. I suggest we ask others (NOT advertise) if interested (escpecially willing) to join WikiProject Korea.

And, how do you create articles?

I see that there is a Balhae article, which also needs improvement, but, there is no article for Daejoyoung, the founder of Goguryeo Balhae. Thanks Oyo321 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oyo321, to create an article, search for the title you'd like to use. If the article truly does not yet exist, a page will appear saying that there are no search results. This page will provide you with the option of creating the page you searched for by following a redlink of the article title. Hope that helps! -Fsotrain₀₉ 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and encouraged to create new articles, in the manner Fsotrain09 describes. However, it would be appreciated if you first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles). These help us to create consistent articles without duplication. For instance, you will find the article on the founder of Balhae at Go of Balhae, in accord with the standard naming conventions. Cheers, -- Visviva 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll keep it in mind. Oyo321 03:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Seong-ryong

Does anyone know a source for this person? I want to write an article on him but cannont find any information. Good friend100 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not a reliable source in itself, the Korean Wikipedia article looks like a good place to start... Aside from that, any Korean encyclopedia or biographical dictionary should provide adequate refs for a good starter article. For instance, Naver, Empas (Empas is preferable since it actually cites its sources)...

I'm not sure where one would turn for a good English-language resource, though. The (incorrect) romanization of his name as Yu Songnyong seems to be quite common. See Google results. I see that his Jingbirok ("Book of Corrections") has been translated into English; see [1]. That might have some good biographical info in it, if you can find a copy.

Hope that's somewhat helpful. Cheers, -- Visviva 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need more? Tell me the kinds of pictures we need, and I'll find them after Chuseok (Lunar Thanksgiving) --General Tiger 17:17, 6 October 2006 (Korean Standard Time)

Thanks for your support. We really need pictures for Joseon, Imjin War or Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Good friend100 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, just tell me the type of pictures we need, and writit in my talk page. I can't go and just look for any pictures, we need pics which will help the Korean Articles be featured. Also, do we need any more for the Japanese General Government Building, Seoul? -- General Tiger 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be gathering pictures for articles, and give the URL link for them. If you need any, just contact me for requests.

Why don't we systemize all Korean articles like WikiProject Japan?

Yes, I'd like to model Wikiproject Japan. They have made it very good over there. Good friend100 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up {{korean}} to auto-categorize by importance and assessed quality. The arrangement is a little simpler than the Japan template; you just enter the quality for the first parameter and the importance for the second. For the time being, I've left off the "unassessed" and "undefined importance" cats, since these don't seem to serve any useful purpose. Please feel free to make use of this setup, and suggest tweaks to that template or the underlying assessment scales. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we need to beef up our support of our articles which are being attacked(?) by those who advocate POV names.

I think that the Imjin War isn't a big issue, but we need to support Baekdusan, Cheonji, and the like. Please send your support for these and such other pages. -- General Tiger 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe in opposing POV names. Please take an objective look at the issues raised by both sides on those pages instead of blindly supporting. I strongly believe that my proposals are based on legitimate reasons such as notability. Note that I am initiating discussions on moving both pages, while General Tiger simply did so without discussion, and has argued for moves on the basis of POV reasons. --Yuje 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should say I've never blindly supported anything. Look to my post at the Imjin War, and you'll find that I changed my thoughts for the current version of the title. Also, most of your searches, if we look into it, contains unrelated hits (like the same thing as the Taekwondo Chonji hits) I've also been rebutting you searches with my own. Also, post these type of messages at my talk page, will you?-- General Tiger 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you accused me of advocating POV names on this page. You asked for support from users from this board, so I simply posted a statement asking those same users to look at the issue in an objective way.--Yuje 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuje this is the wrong place and wrong time to be discussing your "arguments." Please continue in your individual home pages. Oyo321 02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check my page. Who the heck is Appleby? Also, the accuser seems suspisious. How do I get off?

Appleby was a sensible editor here at Wikipedia before you signed an account. Appleby was actually a very capable editor at Korea and Japan related articles. Unfortunately he was a sockpuppeteer and got blocked from Wikipedia.

By accusing you, somebody might think you are acting like Appleby, your IP address is the same (if Appleby edited from his own computer), or if your behavior is a lot like Appleby. If you are blocked, take your case to WP:APB if you feel that the block is unjustified. Good friend100 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to improve the Sujeonggwa article, I'm trying to make it more accessible by making nonexistent pages like "Sujeongkwa" or "Soojonggwa" redirect to it. Can anyone tell me how to do a redirect? =KiteString= 01:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at the Korea talk page or something where many people see your question. Good friend100 01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go the page you want to create as a redirect, and enter the text "#REDIRECT[[Sujeonggwa]] {{r from alternative spelling}}". Save the page. Congratulations! You've created a redirect. -- Visviva 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Uljimunduk-is there even an article on him? I don't think there is one. If there is none, I think Wikiproject Korea should put some serious effort to creating "Uljimunduk" a prominent Goguryeo general. Oyo321 05:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really helps if you familiarize yourself with the Revised Romanization of Korean as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) ... the article can be found at Eulji Mundeok, and I have created Uljimunduk as a redirect. -- Visviva 06:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, heh. I see. Thank you again. Oyo321 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Created Template:WikiProject Korea. In the future, to add this to articles, please use {{WikiProject Korea}}, rather than pasting the table code directly onto the talk page. That will make future updates of the template much easier to effect. Thanks! -- Visviva 06:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Created Template:Koralt, which creates a grid of various spelling/capitalization/punctuation alternatives for Korean names. The number of possibilities this creates is somewhat frightening; if we really want to create that many redirects for most pages (do we?) we might consider getting a bot for the task. This is an addition to the existing suite of tools like Template:Korean mountain names which help with the creation of suitable redirects and/or dab pages. Suggestions for additional alternate-name templates are welcome. -- Visviva 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current assessment scales for quality and importance could probably use some fine-tuning ... they were just put together to give us a starting point.

In particular, I was thinking of adding a ranking called "Unstable" to the quality scale; this would go on articles that are subject to recurrent POV wars, and which are therefore difficult to assess in the normal fashion. Many of these (Dokdo and Sea of Japan naming dispute come to mind) are actually of a fairly high encyclopedic standard, at least occasionally, since the recurrent disputes lead to closer attention from the community and closer scrutiny under WP:V... on the other hand, trying to raise them to FA or even GA standard seems to be unrealistic unless a strong consensus can be forged among all good-faith editors. -- Visviva 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not about any sort of system, but just a note in general about North Korea-related articles. They tend to either lack sources altogether, have many statements that need citation, and/or use embedded links, which don't look all that encyclopedic. Could the Project make it a goal to improve this situation? I'm more than willing to help. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that improving North Korean related articles is a goal. However, it is very hard to get information since North Korea is very secretive about their activities and political history.

Visviva, thanks for the assessment scales. There are several important articles to assess, and I agree that "unstable" should be one. Definitely Dokdo should be tagged with that assessment. Good friend100 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the articles about the North aren't that much different from the articles about the South in this respect... however I would be delighted to participate in an effort to improve the quality & scope of our NK coverage. Might I suggest that we create "working groups" within this project, to focus on specific areas like this? -- Visviva 08:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the goals of the WikiProject Korea should be to make Korean articles more like encyclopediatic articles. It's ridiculous to talk about games or movies made about Admiral Yi in his article. Imagine a section designated just for that sort of junk for any significant historical leaders like George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. Unimaginable. (Wikimachine 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, "X in popular culture" is not an uncommon section for major historical figures. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. has one.  :-) I do agree that it has gotten out of hand in some articles; for figures like Yi Sun-sin we might consider creating a spinoff article just for this aspect of the topic, as has recently been proposed for Confucius. -- Visviva 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that Gwangaeto the Great died of a disease that is not specified. Did not Gwangaeto the Great die in battle? Oyo321 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He died from a disease. -- General Tiger

Is there any evidence? Oyo321 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Samguk Sagi just says that he died, it doesn't specify how: 二十二 年 冬十月 王薨. Neither does Encyber or KoreanDB. Presumably it *would* be mentioned if he had died in battle, so it seems likely that he did die of disease... however, it would be nice to have a source for that. -- Visviva 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that he died of an arrow. Perhaps it was both-an arrow wound that caused an infection that led to a disease and then death. Maybe. Thanks for the research too. Oyo321 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted on the project page I've created a userbox for participants in this project. I might not be super-technical when it comes to boxes so if anyone spots any problems let me know. It also puts you in Category:WikiProject Korea participants. Deizio talk 01:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oyo321 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :) Deizio talk 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I noticed that you used the pic that I formed. (Wikimachine 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I did, it's cool. Deizio talk 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in some WikiProjects, like WikiProject Anime, there are "focus"es. For example, there was a "Neon Genesis Evangelion week" where they completely peer reviewed the entire article. I think that we need to do that.

Especially Korean articles... they are usually messed up by anonymous Korean users who have poor English. So, in major articles, our efforts are muddled up.

Take a look at Imjin War. It's the worst looking article, even though users like Good friend100 have spent countless hours in order to improve it.

I think that we need to have a Imjin War week where we make Imjin War so good that there's no way it can't become a featured article. Then, any anonymous changes can be fixed or updated in relation to the peer reviewed state as the benchmark. (Wikimachine 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I do wonder if Wikiproject Korea will be as useful as Portal:Korea, which tends to become a parallel version of it. Good friend100 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any overlap between the two; a portal is simply an attractive entry-point for outside users, while a WikiProject is for coordinating work among active editors. However, people do tend to use Portal talk:Korea for purposes unrelated to the portal itself. We could, of course, nip that in the bud by redirecting that page to this one.  :-) Not sure if that's a great idea, though. -- Visviva 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on infoboxes for Seoul subway stations. The prototype is finished, {{Template:Seoul line 4 station}}. It has 6 parameters, all of which are optional. This means that if a station is on 2 or more lines a full infobox for one line can be included and additional infoboxes as necessary which just hold the correct color and surrounding stations but not the full name etc. again. This template is now in action at Seoul Grand Park Station. Let me know if you like it and can see anything that can be improved or want help with using it. I'll update progress here. Deizio talk 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for the other lines are up, just substitute "4" with numbers 1 thru 8, or "line 4" for "Bundang line". Instructions are on the talk pages of each template. Deizio talk 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the organization. Several articles on railway related articles in Korea are not so informative. Good friend100 02:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back when the notice board was our primary gathering-point, we had a short-lived program of "collaborations of the month." One of them even became a featured article, although another one still has yet to reach that mark. Shall we start the COTM again? Above, it was suggested that Imjin War (I know, I know, but the short title is easier to type) would be a good target for collaboration. Any other suggestions? -- Visviva 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's what I suggested in Imjin war discussion. (Wikimachine 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Let's do it then. We'll make Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) the first COTM, and plan to choose a new collaboration in the first week of December. I should note that I won't be able to contribute much to this myself -- military history is not one of my strong suits -- but will be happy to help out if I can. -- Visviva 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the current collaboration should always be stored in Template:Cotmk. You can add a nifty little message-banner to appropriate pages by adding this code:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/cotm}}

...which transcludes this page. I have, for instance, added it to the top of my user page. BTW, that message-box is a little shabby; improvements to style (both graphic and prose) would be most welcome. -- Visviva 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about having working groups/task forces for specific subtopics here. These would be simpler and easier to set up than separate WikiProjects. For example, many current members of this project are particularly interested in the military history of Korea. Why not have a "milhist working group" where those editors can gather to discuss issues related to article improvement in that particular area? Such a working group could also coordinate closely with the military-history project, to the benefit of both that project and this one. I would also like to reconstitute the old SKCC project as a working group on South Korean geography. Other areas I can think of that might be suitable for working groups are general housekeeping, North Korea, Korean cuisine -- each of these has a specific small group of editors who actively work in that area. -- Visviva 13:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Only some 15 people. One brand, one project. That way we can be unified in our directions. (Wikimachine 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You have a good point. I think for things like the Collaboration we should have only one (at least for the foreseeable future), so that we can focus our energies. On the other hand, like Wikipedia itself, this project benefits from being as open as possible; we can best do that through cooperation that relates to individual users' specific interests. Most people's field of interest only covers a small part of Coreana; that is especially true of our highest-quality contributors. So I think we will serve our contributors, and Wikipedia, best, if we encourage the formation of working groups. -- Visviva 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea, provided that we all work hard. I'm particularly interested in Korean military history and general Korean history. If members can divide up into certain groups that they are strong or interested in, that would help Korean articles a lot. There's no point trying to improve an article if you are not interested in it. Good friend100 22:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've created a welcome message for new editors, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Welcome. This is to be placed on the talk pages of editors who have not been welcomed, and is drawn from {{welcomeg}}. It could use some further customization, and perhaps a more prominent mention of this project. A few lines in Korean wouldn't be a bad idea either. At any rate, you can use it by typing {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Welcome}} on the new user's talk page. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the template, you guys must teach me how to make those =). I think you should put a link for the stub and cleanup list. And yes, you are right, a stronger message about Wikiproject Korea is needed since the template is to introduce editors to Wikiproject Korea as well. Good friend100 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo. I think we should organize our stubs and/or needed articles like the one at wikiproject Japan on their todo list.

Also, here is a breakdown of proposed departments for this wikiproject. Its just a suggestion, we can add or delete them.

• Military history department
• History department
• Korean Cuisine department
• Culture department
• Biography department
• Media department

Good friend100 15:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're too good to emulate WikiProject Japan. These are not "ToDo"s. They are "Department"s. (Wikimachine 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re the list.... See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/To do (formerly here). I'd say it's fairly well organized, and the formatting is spectacular. :-) However, improvements can and should be made, particularly when it comes to keeping the list up-to-date. -- Visviva 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the departments... glad we're progressing with this. I would recommend that we follow the common terminology among WikiProjects and call these either "working groups" (my favorite) or "task forces". This helps to emphasize their fluid and impermanent nature -- and also to avoid the appearance of bureaucracy. Not a big deal, though.

I think we should be careful to allow these groups to form from the bottom up, and only create them where a distinct group of editors already exists. That bodes well for military history, history, and cuisine ... but I'm not sure there's any distinct group of editors who work on "media" or "culture" as such. Perhaps "popular culture" would be a better label? One does see similar groups of editors working on Korean drama, film, and pop music articles. Just some thoughts... Thanks for all your work on this project. -- Visviva 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture is better department or "task force" since it covers a lot. How should we make our task forces and how should we divide up the groups?

I think the most important thing we need to do is get more editors. This Wikiproject will need many more editors to function efficiently. I suggest we place our templates on cuisine related articles and popular culture articles that are related to Korea. Good friend100 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording of {{Korean}} to emphasize the WikiProject more. The nice thing about that template is that it's already on thousands of Talk pages, including many related to cuisine and popular culture. That template also now includes code that allows us to flag articles as associated with a particular working group (currently "skgeo," "dprk," and "milhist" are supported, but more can easily be added). It's also much older than most such templates (about 2 years older than WikiProject Japan, for instance), and predates not only this project but also the Portal and the notice board. You know, when that template was made (by User:Kokiri), the primary Korea-related gathering place on WP was Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). Those were the days. :-) But I digress... At any rate, I hope we can continue using {{Korean}} as our primary of communicating across Korea-related discussion pages. -- Visviva 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups, which doubles as a template (neat, huh?). Please feel free to jump in & improve it. -- Visviva 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that {{korean}} and the original WikiProject Korea templates show simultaneously on several talk pages. I think that we ought to get rid of the original WikiProject Korea template on all talk pages. (Wikimachine 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article for "Boxer" (임요환) is at Lim Yo-Hwan. The article says its Revised Romanization of Korean is "Im Yoh-wan". I can verify via machine translator that "Im Yoh-wan" is correct, but I am not sure why Lim Yo-Hwan is used as article title. Can someone tell me what should be the name used for the Wikipedia article (either based on his official English name or Wikipedia's Korean transliteration policy)? Thanks. --Voidvector 11:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions! "Yoh-wan" is not correct. The article (at least currently) doesn't say "Yoh-wan," it says "Yohwan," not indicating syllable breaks; RR allows you to put syllable breaks into a name by using a hyphen, in which case it would be "Yo-hwan." As for Lim / Im... unfortunately, no consistent scheme is used for Romanizing Korean names, and a lot of family names are rendered in very strange ways that represent older / less common pronunciations and spellings. For instance, the "Roh" in Roh Moo-hyun is both spelled and pronounced "No" in Korean; there's no R or H. It's a similar story with Lim and Lee. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) says to use Revised Romanization for South Koreans, unless there's a well-established English spelling. That would indicate "Im Yo-hwan". But if there are lots of English-language articles about him already that use a different spelling, you could choose to stick with that one. --Reuben 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lim" is the most common rendering of the family name 임. If you polled people with this family name, it's a safe bet that at least 80% of them would spell it that way. (The situation is similar to the much more common name Lee, properly romanized "I"). For a bit more detail, see the article at Lin (surname). From a cursory Googling of "Lim Yo-hwan -wikipedia" vs. "Im Yo-hwan -wikipedia," it appears that the "Lim" version of this gamer's name is about 10 times more common than the "Im" version. -- Visviva 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endroit are trying to remove some part of the article in Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe even though it is cited article. I wish somebody help me to progress the article about Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe(조선총독부의 조선사편수회). --Hairwizard91 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Reorganization Agent of Korean History#Samguk Yusa, regarding the Simplified Chinese character 国 on the left side of Image:Hwanin hwanguk.jpg. Could this character have been used in the 13th century original version of Samguk Yusa? Please comment.--Endroit 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just describe it based on the article of Korea Britanica encyclopedia. You seems to do original research. --Hairwizard91 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some content to the Military history working group. There is already a lot of military history in the Korean history working group, up through the Joseon dynasty. Therefore, it seems natural to put 20th century items, especially Korean War-related articles, under military history. There are a few requests for translation on the page now, if anybody's interested in a place to get started. --Reuben 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! The exact line between hist and milhist needs to be worked out, but I don't think we should limit the Milhist group entirely to 20th-century stuff; many project members also have an interest in earlier Korean military history, particularly the Imjin War ... both Korean War and earlier-history aficionados could no doubt benefit from a bit of intellectual cross-pollination. :-) As this goes forward, I hope we can also establish good relations with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Anyway, thanks for getting the group started. I am a certified K-E translator, so I will try to help out with those translation requests (if nobody gets to them first); however, that should probably wait until I finish the city & county articles for /DPRK. Cheers, -- Visviva 12:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but there's been a series of Japanese vandalism on many articles that have led to page protection. This has happened to Korea, Kofun period, Joseon Dynasty have been protected recently, and similar thing has happened to Korea under Japanese rule, Battle of Myeongnyang, and I'm sure others.

It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now at Korean-Japanese disputes. Please help revert the vandalism. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer.

What kinds of editing did occur. It is hard to find because of too much editing in there. Can you summarize it ?--Hairwizard91 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be sure to add these and other pages to your "watchlist" and monitor changes. Maintaining the integrity of existing pages is at least as important as improving or adding new articles. The more people watching more articles, the faster we can undo and discourage these attacks. Thanks. Room218 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Room218 does not participate in the discussion at all. And, you reject all sources. However, all users who do not follow your opinion are repelled. If you escape from the discussion, and the edit battle is agitated, it will make big hatred in Japan and Korea. It wishes you to participate in TalkPage. --211.131.78.232 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And You Make an ID if You Want Real Discussion--Hairwizard91 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally frank, anonymous edit warrior, your command of English is not sufficient for a meaningful discussion. --Reuben 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone maybe clean up this page so that it's more newbie-friendly? There are a lot of people adding their names, but I don't see much project activity (maybe I haven't found the right place to look?)

The long list of template boxes is distracting, and their purpose is not clear. Also, combine the "Articles that need improvement" heading with the "To do" table? Is this page just a to-do list, or is there a target article or topic? Goguryeo 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, I'll do a little tidying if nobody beats me to it. The alternative templates should probably go to Template talk:WikiProject Korea; the two headings should definitely be merged (more specifically, the article listings should be added to /To_do). There is a target article, currently Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), although I'm afraid things have been a little slow there thus far. For other collaborations, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups ... I note that the "History" group has yet to be started; perhaps you'd like to give it a shot? -- Visviva 06:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having failed to solve this user to user, I'm going to bring the topic up here next. I noticed last night that User:T-rex has gone through over a dozen Korean city and town articles on November 17th, changing the position of the template and removing links put up to the same page on the Galbijim Wiki. The removal was done on the following pages (one or two here might have been left alone but I think these are all of them):

• Yongin
• Yangju
• Uiwang
• Siheung
• Seongnam
• Pocheon
• Namyangju
• Icheon
• Hwaseong City
• Hanam
• Gwangmyeong
• Gwangju City (Gyeonggi)
• Gwacheon
• Gunpo
• Goyang
• Gimpo City
• Dongducheon

Most of these cities and counties are quite small and had the government website, open directory category, and later on the Galbijim wiki link added as our pages as I always do when an article here is a stub and the one on our wiki is much more in depth. Pages like Pocheon especially are only about three sentences long, and since I spent a large part of the summer translating information directly from Korean to English and a lot of other users who live in the areas write about them as well, I had assumed that the removal was a mistake or done with a bot.

Here are three corresponding pages from our wiki to illustrate the difference in content:

• Pocheon
• Dongducheon
• Yangju

However, it turns out the user believes he has done Wikipedia a service by removing 'spam' from a 'Wikipedia mirror', and the surprisingly unfriendly exchange we had was as follows:

User_talk:T-rex#dongducheon

== [[dongducheon]] ==

Hi - I noticed that you removed a link to the Galbijim Wiki page on Dongducheon a few days ago - was this done automatically by the bot you run? I hope it hasn't been running around removing links willy-nilly as I doubt I could keep up considering the number of town articles. Mithridates 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I just noticed that you have removed the links to each and every one of them. You are aware that our wiki uses the same license and has much more detail on Korea-related topics than the pages here? Please restore them. Thanks. Mithridates 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No this wasn't done by a bot. I noticed the links when I was fixing the templates on all of those pages, and figured I may as well remove the links as well, seeing as I already was editing all of those pages. This has nothing to do with GFDL license issues but that your site is simply a wikipedia mirror and as such there is no need to link to it. Please see WP:EL for more details --T-rex 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is most certainly not a Wikipedia mirror. All the links you removed were pages created by our users, and are much more detailed than the pages you find here on Wikipedia. Dongducheon, Gunpo and Icheon are three of numerous examples where you have removed a link to a page much more detailed than the one here. The only time links are added are when the Galbijim Wiki page is much more detailed than the ones here, and when we use content straight from Wikipedia we have a template indicating the source and do not link from the Wikipedia page. Please restore the links you have removed and be more careful in the future. Mithridates 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spam your site all over wikipedia in the future. As you seem unable to click the link yourself let me reitterate something from WP:EL Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. One should avoid Links that are added to promote a site. One should avoid Links to wikis. Your site fails on all three counts. Regardless if the page is actually a "mirror" or a "fork" these pages are mostly just content from wikipedia with a few images thrown in. --T-rex 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the first sentence? - Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article - which is exactly what they are. You are still stuck on your unfounded assertion that the site is a Wikipedia mirror, which it is not, and you have left a large number of stub articles on small towns with little to no English information where they could have used information from the Galbijim Wiki. A large amount of the info on towns was created by myself over an entire month, translated directly from Korean sites, and some users here have even taken our pages, copied them verbatim on Wikipedia to make new articles and have claimed them as their own. See this page compared to this one - the article was created by me in November and copied onto Wikipedia the next year. This is but one example of many. Now once more, please restore the links or I will be forced to bring the matter up elsewhere. Mithridates 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not the subject of the article, that means like Google should have a link to google.com Regardless to if your site is a mirror or not it still qualfies for half of the list of things not to link to. I'd be carefull about bringing this up elsewhere as think that you'll just end up getting yourself blocked --T-rex 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not taken aback by the removal of the links so much as the following:

• Assume good faith was completely thrown out the window here by jumping to the conclusion that after my time and work here on the various language Wikipedias that one day I decided to up and spam the encyclopedia through the ever so busy Korean small city and town articles
• I only found out about the changes through chance; the user failed to bring it up with me on my talk page
• The user does not seem to have a great deal of interest in Korea in the first place
• The user believes that bringing up this subject should result in a block on my part
• The user is not nice

However, having not had a conflict with a user besides on the Colonization of Ceres page (kind of silly but true), I'm not sure what the next step is and I don't really care to go around to the pages and fight over links that another user believes to be spam. According to this user, the one-sentence "Yangju is a city in South Korea" is fine the way it is, and doesn't need a link to a page with much more information that can even be copied over to Wikipedia under the same license. So what to do? Request mediation? Get consensus here and present a unified front to the user? Something else? Mithridates 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Sorry you had that experience, Mith. I believe the Galbijim links are very helpful here, and I think most editors with local knowledge would share that opinion. First thought: it might help if we had a Template:Galbijim, along the lines of Template:Baekgwa which I created after a bunch of links to Korean encyclopedias were incorrectly removed as "search results." Of course, if anyone really has it in for Galbijim the template will certainly be taken to WP:TfD, but even in that case it's better to have one big discussion than a thousand little battles. -- Visviva 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have created {{galbijim}}; it takes two arguments (the first is the Galbijim title and the second is the display name), but for articles whose titles on WP and GW are identical, it can be called with no arguments, like so:

*{{galbijim}}

I'll plan on replacing the Galbijim links on my next tour of Category:Geography of South Korea, and no doubt adding some new ones too. By the way, anyone with an interest in this area is encouraged to join the South Korean geography working group, and also to pitch in and improve a few city/county articles. Mithridates is quite right that most of these are still in horrible shape. -- Visviva 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree! The Galbijim links are useful and should stay. T-rex noted the current WP:EL's recommendations against wikis, but the actual text goes on to say "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors." Galbijim is fine by that test. Another objection was that "one should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article." Galbijim includes all kinds of local information, including a substantial amount that's outside the scope of Wikipedia. So again, it passes the test. But most importantly, these links are just useful when improving the articles themselves. --Reuben 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the template looks good except that it's galbijim.com instead of galbijim.org so I changed that. I'm glad everybody likes the wiki, and I don't remember if I mentioned it but it's going to be a year old tomorrow. Actually, for the geography of South Korea project it might also be good to list the pages of users on our wiki that live in certain areas in case anyone here has questions. One person worked for some weeks on the Nonsan article, another on the Bundang page for at least a month, and another user by the name of Skookum seems to have been everywhere. Mithridates 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Silla could not ruler over all the territory of the Three kingdoms of Korea, and Balhae controlled the territory of destroyed Goguryeo, it cannot be said to be "unified silla". So, the term is now changed into "North South Period" by the schollars. In order to reflect on the current trends of historians, the term of Unified Silla should be moved to Silla in North South PeriodTalk:Unified_Silla. Please participate the discussion. --75.49.2.82 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up, Visviva, that helps. But I still think things are too confusing for newbies and otherwise busy Wikipedians. As far as I can tell, there's no sense of community or coordinated action because there are just too many similar pages:

• There's the Wikiproject and this talk page. Seems like the logical gateway.

• There's the "notice board" and its talk page called "discussion board". Couldn't the "notice board" be combined with this Wikiproject page, and the "discussion board" be redirected to this talk page? There may be a technical difference, but it's not clear to me.

• There's the Portal:Korea and its talk page. Does the "to do" list have to be duplicated in the Portal? There's no prominent links from the Portal to this Project, and vice versa. Shouldn't the "collaboration of the month" here result in the article being posted at the Portal? Maybe the talk page should redirect here, and nominations discussed here. Nothing's happening there.

• There's a To do list and Complete to do. Do we really need both lists? There seem to be lots more overlapping pages like these.

Instead of directing people's attention, these pages just confuse and dilute, IMHO. Even on this project page, the "collaboration of the month" is easily overlooked because it's not integrated into the page design.

Or is it just me? Goguryeo 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you, things have gotten kind of messy here. A good bit of which is my fault...

• In theory, there is a clear difference between the RWNB and the WikiProject, but in practice lots of stuff is getting posted here that would belong on the message-board, and vice versa. It was suggested some time ago that we merge that page and this one; I objected strongly at the time, but have changed my mind since; in practice, there really is no distinction between the two talk pages. I'm not so sure about the notice board itself, though.
• Well, the "to do" list is duplicated on every page bearing the {{Korean}} template, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be on the Portal too.
  • Links would be a good idea.
  • In theory, portal-featuring is a sign of quality, so ideally articles would be featured there *after* being the subject of collaboration; however, perhaps it's better to do as you say.
  • It might not be a terrible idea to merge the Portal talk page with this one, but this page is already going to be pretty busy if we merge it with the message board. It might be better to have a working group that would focus on gateway articles like Korea, and on the portal as a gateway article.
• The "complete to do" list is intended to be, well, complete, which makes it different from the much shorter list at /to_do. But unfortunately, due to its lack of visibility it has been sorely neglected. I've been toying with some ideas for reviving it as a series of transcluded lists, so that for example each WG could maintain their own list of articles-to-be-created, which would be transcluded both on the WG page and on the "complete to do" page. Not sure if that's the best solution.
• Design is a personal blind spot of mine (of course I'm just another member of the project, but I guess I'm responsible for that message box, at least). Please feel free to fix Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/cotm, or to suggest fixes. Would it help if the talk-message coloring was removed? Or is there a better way to specifically include Template:Cotmk in this page?

Thanks for your helpful criticism. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: have made a navigation table based on the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Does that improve things at all? -- Visviva 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Visviva, it looks great. Good friend100 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another anonymous Japanese IP address is working with User:Jjok to delete relevant introductory summary from Korea under Japanese rule. Please put these types of articles on your watchlist, although I realize a lot of people are off to their Thanksgiving vacations right now. Room218 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps other WikiProject members can add some insights here? Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Family name categories The question is over whether it is appropriate to have categories organizing people by family name only. -- Visviva 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join a working group. It will greatly improve any Korean related articles with knowledable editors in each field. Thank you for being part of Wikiproject Korea! Good friend100 00:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Brown's gas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)

• http://www.browngas.com/ (website of B.E.S.T. KOREA CO.,LTD)

Related AfDs and some discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry#Strange_set_of_articles. We are suspecting that this technology is totally bogus and the companies are only existing to to collect money from uninformed investors. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a stock market watchdog, but in addition the entire business would be rather non-notable.

The creator of the articles is repeatedly assuring that B.E.S.T. KOREA CO.,LTD is a respected, big company in Korea, and its boosting of Brown's gas would make it notable.

Pjacobi 10:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, debate has been closed as delete. -- Visviva 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia article for Baekdu Mountain, most likely written by a Chinese person, is VERY BIAS. Could someone who speaks French please fix the page up?French Wikipedia Article . Thanks --DandanxD 10:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking someone in the Portal:France if there is a portal for France. Or, look up all the french speaking people through babel. Good friend100 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Visviva has been working hard (but alone) on the article assessments. Is there an easy way to see a list of, for example, high priority but low quality articles?

Also, can we find out how often an article page gets viewed? Is there a list of most popular articles, to help us prioritize? Goguryeo 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily tell if an article is bad generally if it is really short, has no footnotes or references, undeveloped information, and no pictures. Good friend100 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To one and all: Please feel free to jump in on the article assessment! Lots of lots of lots of work still to be done. Or see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Housekeeping for a more general set of tasks. Great way to get a feel for the current state of our Korea-related coverage.

Re Goguryeo's questions:

1. Not yet, but we could intersect the two category schemes if that's deemed useful. (so that each importance level would be subcatted by quality and vice versa). Or we could do some kind of thing involving a bot-compiled list.

2. No.

3. No, but there probably is a way to find the Korea-related pages with the most incoming links (although Template:Korean is bound to warp those stats somewhat). -- Visviva 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be nice, I think, to easily find a list of top priority articles that are in the worst shape. Just an idea for later. One more thing, is the template on the project page still being promoted, or is it superceded by the {{korean}} template? The latter seems much more useful. Goguryeo 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]