Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Archives

Archive1

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]

We're making progress in that Koreans aren't generally writing their names out as though they had three, viz Lim Yo Hwan with the result that westerners will assume Hwan to ba a middle name and call Mr. Lim "Yo". Regarding Lim vs Im and Lee vs Yi, I think there are some regional differences in whether that initial L gets sounded. If I remember correctly, the more northern dialects will sound the L. The family name "roh/noh" is trickier. In both Korean and Japanese the r, l, and n are often indistinguishable to western ears - the Japanese word for an inn, ryokan, is a good example. And I think the 'h' in 'Roh' is simply to clarify the sound of the 'o'. --Dan 18:33, 5 December 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 just checked the french article fr:Changbai and there is nothing bias about it. It's an exact translation of the first paragraph of the english article Changbai, plus it includes all the names in the infobox. The signification of the name given: « mont des neiges éternelles », is the korean one: "Perpetually White Mountain Range", not the chinese one, but it's added now. Luccas 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Changbai corresponds to Changbai Mountains of en:. Currently, fr: doesn't have an article about Baekdu Mountain, which is a part of Changbai. This might have been a source for confusion. --Acepectif 15:29, 4 December 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]

I would defer to User:Good friend100 concerning {{WikiProject Korea}}. I believe the idea was for it to balance the similar templates used by other WikiProjects. I'm afraid I will always favor {{korean}}; it also has the advantage of already being on thousands of pages, and has been around for a long time (the original version was added to about 2,000 pages by User:Kokiri back in 2004, long before this sort of thing was common). I agree that intersecting the two categorization schemes is a good idea, but think it probably needs to wait until many more articles have been assessed. Cheers, -- Visviva 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken a stab at assessing the importance and priority level of some of the sites currently listed under the category of archaeological sites in Korea, for example, Pungnap Toseong, Anapji, and Heavenly Horse Tomb and others. I tried to adhere to the standards set for the development of Korean-related articles. Please confirm when you get the chance. Mumun 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I rerated a couple of those as stubs, since they had fewer than 3 full paragraphs. I think we should be fairly strict that articles don't reach level C ("start") until they are of plausible length and cite at least one reliable source... although I notice "less than three paragraphs" is no longer part of the official definition of a stub, so perhaps we should reconsider the line between classes E and D. Our assessment scheme is still in its infancy, so any feedback is welcome. -- Visviva 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I agree with what you've done. We should be strict. Indeed, I really didn't provide any reason for why I assessed the way that I did. You seem to read my mind though -- most articles need expansion and need to properly reference the site excavation reports! I'll try to address these issues before year's end if possible.

Regarding the Gyeongju Basin article, I found that citation:

• Kang, Bong W. 2006. Large-scale Reservoir Construction and Political Centralization: A Case Study from Ancient Korea. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(2):193-?.

I couldn't locate this article online, and so I found an abstract and the above reference on Proquest. Unfortunately, the Proquest resource doesn't seem to indicate on which page the article finishes, and the table of contents for the issue seems to have a problem with pagination. Haven't been able to see the library copy yet. It will be good to keep the other conference paper as a link.

It would be good to at least look more closely at the issue of how we define D and E articles as per the reasons you mention. Mumun 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've created a standard set of navigational icons, see Template:Korea icons. Hopefully this will help in the process of creating a structure here that is clear, robust & inviting. The advantage of putting this all in one template is that when we want to change one icon for another, we only need to edit that single template. You can see the current icon set in use in various places, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Working groups. The working group icons are less than ideal, but were the best I could come up with; if anyone has some good free PNGs or GIFs of iconic Coreana, please upload them.

I also created Template:Korea sidebar as a compact version of /Navigation, but am not happy with the look. If you can make it better, please do. Happiness -- Visviva 07:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

I've stubbed out a little thing I call the redlist. The idea of this is to be as comprehensive as possible a list of encyclopedic Korea-related topics for which we do not yet have articles. This will hopefully get around the problems of both the to-do list (space constraints) and the old "complete to-do list" (too many different kinds of tasks, no topical breakdown). We'll see...

The list is broken down by working group, with a section (currently empty!) for uncreated articles without an associated working group. The section for each working group is actually housed at "(group name)/Redlist", and transcluded to the main list. For example, the DPRK redlist is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/DPRK/Redlist. Each sublist should probably also be transcluded to the working-group page. Note that the Military history WG's situation is a little different, due to the need for cross-compatibility with the military history project.

Please feel free to add everything you can think of to these lists. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats awesome! Will this be a replacement for the todo list on the wikiproject right now? Its very practical to categorize the missing and attention-needing articles. Good friend100 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brand new editor at work on Korean G-7: it came to my attention when s/he incorrectly added it to WP:FA. Can anyone here help orient the new editor and tidy up the article, including adding categories? I tried to do some cleanup, but the content is out of my territory. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll see if I can help. Good friend100 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friend. Also, the image appears to be a copyvio, incorrectly loaded up to Commons - can you follow the links there and doublecheck on the Korean website it appears to have been taken from? Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since both South Korea and North Korea agreed to include Dokdo on the Unification Flag, could someone upload the updated flag? Thank you! --DandanxD 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what it will actually look like yet? -- Visviva 13:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a slightly better picture of the new flag, still dokdo is barly, but at least, visible. [1] — Luccas 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took upon myself to create a separate article for the South Korean won used between 1945 and 1953. And I've edited {{Template:Historical currencies of Korea}} accordingly so that it doesn't link twice to South Korean won. I also took the liberty of raising the assessment rating of South Korean won from B to A, since alot of work has been put on it recently.

I haven't been a wikipedian for long so I'd like if someone else could review South Korean won, as I think it may have attained Good Article status by now. I just don't feel comfortable nominating an article after I've done some major contributions to it. — Luccas 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and you did a great job on it. Could there be more information on the history part? Or is the section short because of the only 50 year old Korean bank? Apart from that, I think it is excellent enough for "Good article" Good friend100 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent photo of HSR-350x has been deleted, or will be deleted due to the copy right violation. Can Anybody can take a private photo of HSR-350x and upload in Wikipedia? The Korean G-7 needs an image for HSR-350x.

Please come into my talk page if you are interested. --Jamesshin92 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Statues: Emailing KRRI for permission... yet no returns.

Hey, I looked over the article. If no one else uploads a personal image, we will have to wait until next summer because next summer I will be going to Korea and get everything that you could get on all the Korean articles. I am very hopeful but also sad at the fact I have to wait like 9 more months. -_- Good friend100 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first hwan printed in 1953 by the US Government Printing Office all have their horizontal hangul and hanja incriptions written right to left (as seen here Image:100 hwan 021753 obverse.jpg). We all know korean is written left to right (western way) and pre-20th century text were written verticaly top to bottom, right to left (chinese way). But has anyone ever seen another example of korean written right to left, or could this be a mistake from the Printing Office? All following notes printed by KOMSEP, including the ones issued just 1 month after the american printed ones are all written left to right. — Luccas 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just worked on translating a part of the text at [2] and it says (if I translated right) that the reason the terms "won" and "원" are inscribed on the hwan notes is because of the quick need for new notes, the change in currency, and commissioning a foreign corporation to print the notes. These propably are the same reasons why the writing are reversed. See South Korean hwan/References for the text and translation. — Luccas 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As many of you members have noticed, talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute shows another case of sock puppetry of users who had much potentials for contributing to Wikipedia.

Many productive users such as Appleby, Room218, Korealist, etc. have all been banned because of their misconducts. I don't like it at all, and it makes Koreans look bad whenever somebody associated with Korea get caught for honor violations. (Wikimachine 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article is really confusing and hard to follow, I'd appreciate it if somebody would stop by and try to sort it out. --AW 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]