Wikipedia talk:Korea-related topics notice board/Proposals

This is an archive of items from the main discussion board. As a rule, these proposals are no longer active. Please do not comment on them here; if you wish to revive a discussion, please post a new topic on the main board.

Collaboration of the month

August Collaboration

This is an approval vote, to decide on the Collaboration of the Month for August 2005. You may vote for as many options as you wish. You may also nominate additional articles.

Korean language
1. Supoort. Has many facts should be added and modified. E.g. ㅡ has been recognized as [ɨ]; ㅚ, ㅟ, ㅐ, and vowel lengths facing extinction; Consonants and their assimilation (see also Talk:Korean language#Concering IPA); Seoul dialect is technically different from the standard language used in South Korea; etc. --Puzzlet Chung 22:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. -- Visviva 12:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Korea (1900-1950)
1. Support. -- Visviva 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul
1. Support. -- Visviva 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (Tiebreak).[reply]
2. Support. --Puzzlet Chung 22:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean art

Korean literature
1. Support. -- Visviva 11:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Kdammers 08:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Buddhist temples

The East Sea Question

If you have an opinion as to whether a certain body of water should be called "East Sea" or "Sea of Japan" in Korea-related articles, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. -- Visviva 03:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to current surveys and two of the Village pumps (guilty of crossposting, I know). I hope we can get many responses to help us reach consensus. Kokiri 08:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Korea

I was just going to suggest that somebody reviewed Names of Korea and the respective section in Korea. If somebody had access to good material on the name, I think it could be improved. Afaik, the name Korea in the West is based on Arab merchants who had contact with the country during the Goryeo times. I think together with the fact that English-speaking countries were not very involved early in Korean history, this can explain much about the use of the Corea spelling found in older documents. The official change under Japan does not sound credible, and as with the above, references would be appreciated. I cannot imagine that the Japanese really cared about the order in the alphabet in English—after all the official policy was, afaik, that Korea was actually part of Japan. Is it not Korean nationalists who want to undo something that was never done?

To sum up, if anyone had reliable sources, please add to the articles. Currently they could also benefit from a bit of copyediting. Kokiri 29 June 2005 10:22 (UTC)

Actually the Arabic name for Korea is "Kuri" (گر) not Corea. Corea is the name that appear in French maps and it is how it is spelled in both French and Spanish as "Coree" and "Corea" respectively. And yes, the first Europeans to arrive in Korea did not come from the anglo-american world but were rather Dutch and French merchants/explorers. "Corea" actually seems to be a Dutch pronounciation of "Goryeo."

As for the "credibility" of the name-change:

There are many instances wherein Imperial Japan made alterations in the Korean name of things, perhaps the most famous of them being the change in name of Elementary Schools from "Normal Schools" 보통학교 to the more patronizing "국민학교," a shortening of the term derived from 황국신민학교(皇國臣民學校) meaning "School for the Subjects of his majesty the Japanese Emperor."

The issue has emerged as part of a larger debate regarding the Forced Name-Change Controversy 창씨계명(創氏係名), where usage of the Korean language was banned during the occupation and Imperial Japan forced Koreans to speak only Japanese and then change their names so they were more "Japanese-sounding."

Some older Western maps still bear Korean geographical regions using the Imperial Japanese alterations, such as "Daikyo"--> "Daejon", or "Hanyang"--> instead of "Seoul". The problem is that these terms were used as a means of suppressing the memory of the Korean language. The reason why there is such a dispute over C/Korea is precisely because of that. None of the older documents seem to mention "KOREA" but rather "COREA," including a 1794 British map of China.

In fact, "Corea" was the named used by Joseon during the 1908 London Olympics, where the Corean delegation appeared long before their Imperial counterparts. The argument is that after the annexation of Korea in 1910, Japan requested the League of Nations to call its newly acquired territory "Korea" instead of "Corea."

Since then the name has stuck in international usage, and the current South Korean government has maintained its usage out of fear of causing confusion.

Mikhailkoh 4:27 28 March 2006

Naming conventions

I suggest that we go through the naming convention step by step (i.e. section by section) and see if we're happy with it (just like the current (08:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)) discussion on RR). The parent Wikipedia:Naming convention is considered official policy, so we should ensure that we're up to scratch (i.e. not a mere convention in most Wikipedians do it this way). I think that most will stay as it is, but at least once everything should be discussed through on the talk page, so people have access to the reasoning. Kokiri 08:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'd also like to see us create a Korea-related MoS, covering finer points of usage, a la the China- and Japan-related MoS's. -- Visviva 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Cinema?

I would like to propose a more in depth entry for Korean cinema and also create two sepearte pages: one for South Korean Cinema and one for North Korean Cinema. I know there is an existing page on Korean cinema, and while it is informational it focuses mainly on modern South Korean cinema post-1980 and is in rather dire need of cleaning up. I propose (and am willing to undertake) the creation of a new South Korean Cinema page and beginning a North Korean Cinema page. This new page will include a more in depth look at the history of Korean cinema (which is long and interesting). I just do not want to step on anyones toes, but I also feel that the current Cinema page is lacking in so much information and is in need of cleaning, we may as well begin a new page and include the information from that one. Rufus 0:13, September 14, 2005

I would like to see You do this Rufus. (I try to make entries on individual films as they come and I see them.) The French Wik has much better descriptions of Korean films than we have: They seem to follow a more or less standard format and really dig up info. Maybe we should augment our entries with translations of the French or at least look into adopting their format. Kdammers211.225.32.226 09:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]