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)

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)

Lunisolar/Gregorian Dates

Since articles on pre-1895 Korean history get relatively low views, this may not be the most urgent of all issues. However, if any major advancements are to be made is that area of Korean history I think date conversion is something we should probably have a discussion about.

See User:00101984hjw/Korean Calendar Conversion -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-related thought: is it appropriate to use Western month names for lunar calendar months? Like 8th month of 1850 -> "August 1850"? This is done a lot and I feel like it's inaccurate and misleading; do the Korean calendar months even have the same number of days as the Western months? seefooddiet (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A direct translation of "8th month of 1850" to "August 1850" is most likely an inaccurate translation of unconverted lunisolar to Gregorian.

I'm pretty sure Korean lunisolar calendar months (or Chinese Chongzhen at least) have 12 months in a normal year and a leap month every two or three years. Since dates within the 13th month is usually translated into January of the next year when converted into Gregorian the wording itself shouldn't be a problem. But again, "8th month of 1850" most likely refers to a lunisolar date and not a Gregorian one. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we should discourage the use of Gregorian month names for Korean calendar. Need to look up what academia does for them. seefooddiet (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ideally all Korean Calendar months should be converted to Gregorian per WP:JG anyways. Might be worth changing the guidelines to discourage use of western month names in Korean lunisolar so the two can be distinguished at the very least. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think in some cases it'd be worth showing both calendar dates so can dictate style for Korean dates seefooddiet (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sunghoon#Requested move 6 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sunghoon#Requested move 6 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Article bounty

Hi, see Wikipedia:Reward board#Top importance WikiProject Korea articles.

I'm offering a $150+ reward for any time you improve a top-importance WikiProject Korea article to WP:GOODARTICLE status (some restrictions, see that post and below). Reward may change; I'll name a price if you name the topic. E.g. something like Sejong the Great I'd pay hundreds of dollars at least.

You should send me a private email (use the mail this user function) or post on my talk page ideally before you begin work on the topic at all. This is to avoid you feeling disappointed if I decline the request. If you are in the middle of working on an article, post ASAP and I may still reward you after you get to GA.

Reasons I may decline: 1. article is already reasonable quality 2. is likely to be improved within few years 3. is not Korea-specific enough (namely Hibiscus syriacus). My goal is to incentivize work on topics that are less likely to be improved but are important enough. I'll be fair about everything; if you make a clear reasonable effort and promote to GA you'll probably get rewarded. seefooddiet (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I exclude North Korea topics is because a lot of people are interested in it already. It gets proportionately much better coverage than many South Korean or pre-division Korean history topics. seefooddiet (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)