Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Korean calendar automatic conversion module

Just putting this out there—we should make a Korean calendar converter module. It's clearly possible, per [1]. {{JULIANDAY}} is similar, see also Category:Date-computing templates and Category:Chinese traditional date and time templates. I probably won't get around to programming it in near future but having this module would be a huge help to our community. seefooddiet (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we know whether Korea had its own unique calendar? Or did it adapt the Chinese system (Chongzhen, Shoushi, Wuyin Yuan, etc.) without modification? If so, do we know when? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No idea on my end. seefooddiet (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

People name disambigs and redirects

I've had some confusions/doubts about our disambiguation pages for people names.

• Many of our disambigs have non-standard romanizations as their titles, e.g. "Lee Young-ja" should be "Lee Yeong-ja" per WP:KOREANNAME. Are these better served by being more standard romanizations? Seems unintuitive to have ad-hoc romanizations for these.
• Noticed (but can't recall cases rn) where the disambig has a non-standard romanization but people with the same Hangul names don't appear on the disambig page because they use some alternate romanization.
  • Think the lack of enforcement of WP:NCKO#Create alternate title redirects is contributing to this problem.

I think it'd be helpful if we had a drive to really enforce creating redirects for people name pages. Redirects should handle all reasonably conceivable cases (surname order, standard MR, standard RR, WP:KOREANNAME spelling). By doing this, we'd be able to weed out a lot of edge cases (people with same hangul names but no disambiguation pages, people missing from disambig pages, etc). seefooddiet (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Many of our disambigs have non-standard romanizations as their titles, e.g. "Lee Young-ja" should be "Lee Yeong-ja" per WP:KOREANNAME. Are these better served by being more standard romanizations? Seems unintuitive to have ad-hoc romanizations for these.

The romanization of the disambiguation page title should match whatever the majority of article titles listed on it use. For example, all three articles listed at Lee Young-ja use "Young-ja", not "Yeong-ja", so having the disambiguation page be titled "Lee Yeong-ja" wouldn't make any sense.

Similar situation at Kim Bong-soo, none of the articles listed use the RR form of Bong-soo ("Bong-su"), so listing the disambiguation page at "Kim Bong-su" would be unintuitive.

If there is no majority (ie 2 articles romanize one way, 2 articles romanize another way), only then should we defer to the strict RR form. RachelTensions (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this btw; is this based on Wikipedia policy somewhere or is it novel reasoning? Should we put it in WP:NCKO/MOS:KO? seefooddiet (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not based on any policy that I'm aware of, just common sense. Idk if it needs to be added to the MOS given that I'm not sure it's ever come up as a problem before. RachelTensions (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's so straightforward; I think there are reasonable arguments to default to systematic spellings given the chronic uncertainties we have around ko people names. Many titles have no real proof of common name or personal preference, and are not systematic. Disambigs that align with these faulty titles reinforce these non-rigorous spellings. That said I think your proposal is fine for dealing with it, I just didn't think it's clear cut. seefooddiet (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article titles themselves are faulty then that's a problem to deal with at the article level. The purpose of the disambiguation page is nothing more than to serve as a landing point for articles with ambiguous names... determining or validating the WP:COMMONNAME romanization of each individual article included within it to determine what the actual name of the disambiguation page should be titled is out of scope. RachelTensions (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My point about article titles wasn't that disambiguations should resolve them in some way, it was that we have so much uncertainty, frequently changing article titles for people, and plausible variations of name spellings, that defaulting to something systemic in general may be less confusing. Tl;dr felt like my uncertainty was being snubbed when I still think there's reasonable confusion there seefooddiet (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny story about this. Back in 2006 I created a template to assist in creating these redirects, using the then-new Magic Words functionality. It was modernized by @PC78 but subsequently deleted following a TFD in 2022 for having "no clear purpose" (sigh), despite that purpose being clearly documented on the template page. (I was out of the game due to medical issues at the time.) I don't really know if that kind of template-based approach is the way to go, or if it would make more sense to recode it from scratch, or if perhaps a botted or otherwise external-code-assisted approach might make more sense, but I will explore whether I can userfy that ex-template for the community's review.

Regardless of the technical means used, if we're going to return to large-scale creation of alternative-romanization redirects for Korean names, we may want to consider exactly how such redirects should be categorized. IMO the issues around creating and maintaining these redirects are sufficiently Korea-specific that it would be helpful to have one or more specific rcats for them. -- Visviva (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have been kindly assisted in restoring the former {{Koralt}} to User:Visviva/Korean alternate name redirects. It is ... definitely a bit of an "echo from another time", which probably helps explain why it was deleted. But I would be interested in getting thoughts on the general concept, and how we might update it (or if it's worthwhile to do so). My initial thoughts are (1) this should probably take as its basic input not precomposed romanizations of each syllable, but the actual jamo or naive RR representations thereof, with standard/predictable romanizations generated by template logic (with an option for the user to add ad-hoc romanizations as well); (2) the output format should be changed to be more suitable for use on some kind of coordination page in project or user space, as the old idea of placing this template on article talk pages is surely a non-starter today; (3) some of the auto-generated forms like "Xxx Yyy zzz" may not be plausible enough to merit redirects; (4) this is missing some obvious value-added features, and should e.g. provide an indication of the current target for bluelinked redirects (thus helping to identify cases where dabs are needed) and preload the suggested redirect page content and edit summary for redlinked redirects. I will work on putting a somewhat more modernized version of this together with those thoughts in mind, happy for any suggestions. -- Visviva (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This is great, thanks! Some thoughts:

• Bit of a hassle to manually create all these pages; ideally we'd like to create these kinds of redirects for every person with a Korean-language name. Do you think something like WP:BOTARTICLE would work for us? The bot should only create R's when no page exists, otherwise leave alone.
• I think we should keep this manual Latin script input version and make a new Hangul input version; an IP user I know has been working on an automatic romanization module that's nearing ready for use. Would need to be modified to fit this purpose, but it's doable. Not sure when we'll deploy though.
  • E.g. for Syngman Rhee, by using Hangul only, "Syngman" wouldn't be captured as it's ad-hoc.
  • We could also automatically populate common ad-hoc romanizations, e.g. "young" for 영 or "moon' for 문.

I think maybe one possibility is a bot page or something that creates a bunch of redirects given a Hangul and/or Latin script input. Users would probably need some kind of permission to get access to it. If I got access to this once and ran it on every Korean person's page that may be sufficient for a couple of years even; can run it every time there's a backlog.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? seefooddiet (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh actually someone just told me AWB can create redirects.

I may be able to do this without a bot in near future. Regardless a bot would be an easier solution for most people who don't program or use AWB seefooddiet (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a bot would make sense once the redirects are lined up (it's amazing what you can do with SnapLinks or equivalent and a table of links with preloaded content, without any automation tools at all -- but it gets old after the first thousand clicks or so). But IMO probably we would want to have a human in the loop, at least initially, to check (a) that the redirects are actually plausible, and (b) that there aren't any collisions that need to be sorted out. (Regarding automated romanizations: I wish Wiktionary hadn't deleted the old ko-pron template, which had logic I would really rather not have to recreate, but wikt:Module:ko-pron is pretty impressive (but does way more than we need here).) -- Visviva (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am the IP user that Seefooddiet mentioned.

• We could also automatically populate common ad-hoc romanizations, e.g. "young" for 영 or "moon' for 문.
  1. Not really sure about this. I personally agree that "young" is more common than "yeong" for 영, but to what extent should we go? For example, should "koo" for 구 be included or not?
  2. This will also make the module more complex. I don't think this is worth doing.
• I noticed that someone mentioned the module on Wiktionary. I am aware of that module, but Wiktionary's approach is not very suitable for Wikipedia (for example, the template/module on Wiktionary gets hangul text from the page title; etc.). That is why I created a new one from scratch. Mine is also much simpler.

172.56.232.105 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! Is your module available to view? -- Visviva (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed split of Landlord deity

I have proposed a split of the Landlord deity article which may be of interest to this project. I would appreciate your thoughts in the discussion on the talk page. Erynamrod (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on president counts

For the last few weeks people have been adding and deleting the term number in the lead for SK presidents. Examples: [2] [3][4].

Could we have a centralized discussion on what to do? Options:

1. No count or election number
2. Only the count
3. Only the election number
4. Both count and by election number

For count and election number, see this old version of Lee Myung-bak. It used to say politician who served as 10th (17th election) president of South Korea from 2008 to 2013. See List of presidents of South Korea#List of presidents for context.

Tagging some people involved in the additions/deletions. @Surtsicna @GoodDay @Ogiwarahoshi @VNC200 @Daschund 11 @Estar8806 seefooddiet (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There should be no number unless it is prevalent in sources when the president is named or discussed. See Template:Infobox officeholder/doc. --Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to possibly prepare an RFC, which will settle once & for all, where we add numbering & where we don't, concerning office/position holders. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A bit of a wishy washy mess of differing sources. For example, some sources (almost exclusively domestic: Korea Times Korea Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily) say Roh Tae-woo is the 13th president, because he was elected in the 13th election, even though chronologically on List of presidents of South Korea#List of presidents he's the sixth person to hold the office in its full capacity, and Yoon is 13th.

Going by that standard, though, for example, would make Park Chung Hee the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th president of South Korea. Which is unwieldy because his terms as president are not referred to as "presidencies", but as one consistent "presidency".

On the wider, global stage, the standard is to just use the chronological number of people who have held the office, and that's what's generally reported in non-domestic sources (Britannica, The Diplomat, CNN, ABC, BBC News) (and some domestic ones, too: The Dong-a Ilbo, Korea Times)

I think for simplicity's sake and for consistency with how basically every other head of government is labelled, we should just use the chronological number: they were the Xth person to hold this office in its full capacity. RachelTensions (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just about near fed up with this entire general topic of do/don't add numbering to office holders' intro & infobox. Why? because other editors who seem to be concerned about it, don't want to do anything major about it. Thus why my discussion at the Village Pump isn't going anywhere. Very frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia for you. It's a blessing if someone happens to care about the same thing you do at the same time. seefooddiet (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @RachelTensions Ogiwarahoshi (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think RachelTensions' proposal makes sense. seefooddiet (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to label them with any number in infoboxes and lead sentences? RachelTensions? Ogiwarahoshi? seefooddiet? --Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

RachelTensions provides evidence of common practice per the template doc you provided seefooddiet (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No. RachelTensions provides evidence ("a wishy washy mess of differing sources") that there is no common standard for numbering in the sources. Why do we need to pick one? Can we not just go without? It seems to work just fine in articles about the prime ministers of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, etc. --Surtsicna (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Mmhfm. I know that there are two major practices but it doesn't bother me. By a precise interpretation of the doc you linked, I'm wrong. It just doesn't bother me. Do with my admission what you will. seefooddiet (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we do it for some and not others. I assume that's how the people involved with that set of articles has decided to do it.

I do know that out of the 140 countries that specifically have presidents, all but 11 include the chronological number in the infobox. Presumably some of them have been omitted because there are two different lines of chronology for the title (ie. President of Germany vs. President of Germany (1919–1945))

It really doesn't matter which way we do it here as long as the consensus we arrive at is applied consistently across all articles in the set. However, given the widespread adoption of chronology in other presidents, we should at least have good reasons for going against the grain if we decide to omit. RachelTensions (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the lack of standardized numbering and the apparent arbitrariness with which the sources assign or do not assign numbers to these presidents are good enough reasons for us not to assign them. In my opinion, these numbers only ever make some sense in the articles about US presidents, because only they are commonly referred to as the Xth president instead of by their name. Otherwise the numbers strike me as trivia and in many cases are not at all supported by usage outside of Wikipedia. --Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that the SK govt officially seems to use the election number to count presidents (e.g. Yoon is 20th). I think in general we can view it as SK sources tending towards the election number, and non-SK sources tending towards the people count.

Here's a proposal: putting both numbers in the lead but not in the infobox. The infobox doc has that specification, but that's just for the infobox. I'd argue the numbers are both noteworthy and meaningful and not just trivia. seefooddiet (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a recipe for an absolutely unnecessary confusion. I still do not understand why we need any number. The lead is meant for essential information. How is this essential information? What difference does it make whether someone was the 10th or 11th president? --Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A number is prominently given for SK presidents in RS; not displaying it based on our own personal judgment I'm skeptical of. It's also meaningful to understand how old the presidential system is in the country. As an extreme example: for Syngman Rhee do we just not mention that he's the first president at all, or do we make him an exception? seefooddiet (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A number is sometimes given, sometimes not; and when it is given, it is not the same number across the sources. The number does not indicate how old the presidential system is because it usually includes the presidents who served during the parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. Sometimes you will find references to "the first president of the Sixth Republic of South Korea" (who may otherwise be called the sixth president of South Korea), "the second president of the Sixth Republic of South Korea", etc. It is an arbitrarily assigned description and I do not think we should be treating it as an essential biographical fact. --Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree. I think one can provide the most common two variants of the number (not the anomaly case you mention), and have it be useful and not really disruptive. Ultimately this debate is over less than a sentence of content on a small number of articles. Will have to wait for others to weigh in. seefooddiet (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Or we could open an RFC. I just don't want the reverting wars to keep happening (they're still actively going on rn) seefooddiet (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

How exactly would the lead sentence of a presidential biography look with two numbers? Could you provide an example? --Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Below is just one possible wording that I'm not in love with, we can try others.

Moon Jae-in served as the president of South Korea from 2017 to 2022. He is the 12th person to hold that office, and was the winner of the country's 19th presidential election (2017).

Broadly, I don't understand what's preventing us from showing both, given that both numbers are meaningful to large groups of people. Moon's website was "19president.pa.go.kr". I feel like ignoring the number altogether feels like it's going more against reliable sourcing. seefooddiet (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The good thing about that suggestion is that it does not burden the lead sentence with minutiae. The drawback is that it burdens the lead paragraph with a whole trivia sentence instead. --Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Good ol' "agree to disagree". I'll move to RFC. seefooddiet (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet: if you do open an RFC? I'd recommend it be for all governmental offices of all countries. We need a guideline (or whatever) for where to include/exclude numberings. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think a one-size-fits-all solution is possible and it should not be sought. --Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nor am I calling for a one size fits all. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify then: a single RFC for all governmental offices of all countries can only end in what Template:Infobox officeholder/doc already says: numbers "should only be used when there is a well-established use of such numbering in reliable sources". Therefore it would be a waste of time. --Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. If you know a better way. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Surtsicna; would be too difficult to account for all the offices in the world in a single RFC. seefooddiet (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Well then, if this issue is going to be tackled on a country-by-country basis? I'll go along with deleting any numbering from the South Korean presidents bios, intro & infobox. If there's no single reliable sourcing for such numbering. PS - double numbering (term & individual) would be a mess. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Gyeongju University

The University has been renamed but I'm unsure if it's "Shin Gyeongju University" or "Sin Gyeongju University" as both are used on the university's homepage. Anyone able to verify and move the page? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Will post on the talk page for that article seefooddiet (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)