Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Japanese wiki Kantō Massacre changes

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

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

Joseon politics are a complete mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"K-pop girl group" in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-naming on Joseon grand princes

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Asia League Ice Hockey

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

More restrictive change regarding Wiktionary links