Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television series

[edit]

Hello @Илона И, there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what fits the definition of television series. As you can see in the link provided, the definition has evolved over time to include content that is also distributed on streaming platforms. If you are still not convinced, we can ask other editors to have an opinion on this matter. Wheezythewave (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wheezythewave, do you suggest not split Television series at all?
If so we need to edit many other Korean actors/actresses pages, not only Kim Seon Ho's one because other editors tends to split TV series and Streaming series at TV series and Web series. I don't know who began to do this. I think we need to make discussion at MOS:TV talk page so we had reference for merging previous splits. Илона И (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Илона И, I think it's a good idea to make the discussion. I don't find it meaningful to separate television series and streaming series, if you look at the article page for the series on streaming platforms, they are still labelled as television series in the lead section. Wheezythewave (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I check the filmography list template and it separates television series and web series. We should make it consistent for now by calling it web series, otherwise between summary and content will be mismatched. I can change it back when discussion result in MOS:TV already has consensus. Preferwiki (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Preferwiki. I think having a separate web series section is fine as long as the titles listed there are actually web series. The main concern is that on many Korean actor pages, streaming television, which are widely considered part of the broader television series category, are being misrepresented as web series. This misclassification can be misleading, and a consensus on this seems to be reached per @Paper9oll. Wheezythewave (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there three separate sections for Television works? Whether it's a TV movie, a broadcast – cable – streaming series, or a variety and music show — it's all television. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 08:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was separated in template {{Infobox filmography list}} as television series, television show, web series etc. I simply follow it. I can adjust accordingly if the template is changed. Preferwiki (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|television= is applicable; just remove |television_series= and |television_show=. Since this discussion is seeking consensus for change, I disagree with combining variety shows (television shows) with dramas (television series); I'm not sure how that could be considered an "improvement" and I'm certainly not buying it. However, I'm okay with integrating OTT content aka web series into television series. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 15:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Pyxis Solitary to have opinion on this matter. Should we move the discussion to WT:BIOG? Wheezythewave (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actor biographies are expected to comply with MOS:BIO, and filmographies are a part of their biographies. I think this filmography discussion should take place at WT:BIOG. (Thanks for pinging me.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). 07:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To see how the filmographies of non-Korean actors are done we can look, for instance, at the filmography of an actress who has been in several streaming series such as Natasha Lyonne; or actor Timothy Olyphant. There are also the many filmographies at Category:Actress filmographies and Category:Male actor filmographies. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 07:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, the consensus is that OTT/web series should be merged into television series, this seems to be widely agreed upon here and ready for implementation. Since the main contention is whether OTT/web series should be merged into television series across all South Korean filmography tables, where such subsections often appear, I moved this discussion to WT:KO, similar to how network columns were eliminated via WP:KO/NETWORKCOL. Additionally, this discussion should address whether Western media format conventions which broadly lump all types of television-related content together (at least on Wikipedia based on WP:FILMOGRAPHY as a WP:ADVICEPAGE which "has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline") should be applied uniformly to South Korean filmographies, and whether it is even beneficial to ignore the differences in formats. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 11:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"this discussion should address whether Western media format conventions which broadly lump all types of television-related content together...should be applied uniformly to South Korean filmographies, and whether it is even beneficial to ignore the differences in formats.". First of all, this is not the Korean Wikipedia. The purpose of manual of styles in this English language (i.e. Western) encyclopedia is to have a consistent and uniform article structure and layout throughout the project. It creates familiarity for the reader and it's done for their benefit — not the editors'. Depending on the subject, minor variations are acceptable, but that doesn't mean some articles can go off the rails. South Korean actors are not better, or worse, than non-Korean actors. The only difference is that they're not Italian, German, French, Spanish, British, Canadian, American, etc., but along with non-Korean actors, the nuts and bolts of their biographies are expected to be similar across-the-board, and this includes their filmographies. If South Korean biographies and filmographies become the exception, should they be the only one? Pyxis Solitary (yak). 13:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC); edited 03:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [included what was accidentally left out][reply]
fwiw (I won't participate in this discussion otherwise; don't ofte edit in this area) I'm not sure where you got the reading that Paper9oll was implying Korean supremacy or exceptionalism. They just have a topic interest in Korean pop culture so are interested in creating local-level policy for the area they care about. I do think the broader MOS should be followed, just thought the implication here was a little sus grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia serves a global audience and covers topics from many cultures worldwide. It isn't strictly and exclusively a "Western" encyclopedia just because the word "English" is in its title and/or branding. The broader MOS covers only certain portions of article formatting where consistency is explicitly expected. For areas not directly covered by the broader MOS, including topic and/or cultural deviations such as MOS:KO, advice pages (which are not formal MOS and should not be conflated with one) like WP:FILMOGRAPHY provide guidance and examples but do not mandate strict or rigid interpretations. This approach is consistent with MOS itself, which encourages flexibility, as well as WP:IAR principles, and reasoned interpretation. Moreover, the layout aligns closely with existing WP:FILMOGRAPHY examples, particularly regarding column structure, and is not a radical departure. The main difference is splitting up TV dramas and TV shows (and yes, I believe the discussion on OTT/web series is finished since there is support to combine them into television series tables). The former are scripted storytelling, usually with continuous plots, character development, and specific genres, while the latter are unscripted or loosely scripted, focusing on entertainment, interviews, games, or reality elements. Likewise, if both TV dramas and variety shows were combined into a single ambiguous table sectioned under "Television", would a reader glancing through be able to tell that Squid Game: The Challenge is a variety show rather than Squid Game, a scripted drama? Without clicking through to the article (and no, I am not going into this debate nor bringing the discussion in this direction), this distinction could easily be missed, reducing clarity and potentially confusing readers. In my neutral opinion, this is neither an improvement nor a benefit for readers. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) From WP:ACTOR:
"Goals
  • To standardize Wikipedia articles on film actors....
  • To maintain standards for articles about people in world cinema, as well as for categories, templates, and other Wikipedia items that may support those articles."
Although it only mentions "film" and "cinema", it is widely understood that actors work in both film and television.
(2) Filmography tables include a Notes section for pointing out relevant information, for which in the case of a variety show (such as Squid Game: The Challenge) that has a title associated with a scripted series it would have a notation, for example, "This is a variety show, not the scripted drama series." Pyxis Solitary (yak). 05:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROJECT. WikiProjects serve as collaborative groups where editors share expertise, coordinate work, and help assess article quality within specific topic areas. While they provide valuable advice and tools, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles". If there are proven solutions that clearly separate TV dramas and variety shows using clear, distinct categorization in the layout itself, it makes little sense to rely on lengthy notes to explain these differences which isn't effective nor user-friendly and goes against MOS:HEADINGS. The notes section within a table serves best when used for supplementary details such as cameo or guest appearances. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 08:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Paper9oll that television series and variety shows need to be separated. Many korean celebrities highly involved in both of it and it can be very confusiong if we put it all in one Television category. Илона И (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too much work for editors to merge Television series and Television show. I in South Korea they even have award ceremonies that separate the two categories, so IMHO it needs to be separated. Preferwiki (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Television series and television shows mean the same thing. They are interchangeable television terminology. See MOS:TV and Television show. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 11:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All television roles (whether they be old fashioned TV shows that air on a TV network, or shows that are released via streaming) should be included under a common "Television" heading.
There's no reason to break them all up into different tables. It's 2025, the common understanding is that Netflix series (and similar) constitute "TV series". RachelTensions (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here isn't about the platform (i.e whether streaming content counts as television; this discussion is over if you read carefully above) but about the different formats within television works, specifically whether to separate television dramas and variety shows. Grouping all television roles under a single "Television" heading risks losing important distinctions that help readers understand the nature of each work at a glance. Clear separation improves navigation and clarity. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 08:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belated notification of a discussion of interest

[edit]

At least, of interest for some: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#AI_use_on_ko_wiki_(WikiVault). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had made a notice before #AI use on the Korean Wikipedia grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image Request

[edit]

Hello everyone, I am attempting to get List of Michelin-starred restaurants in South Korea to FL status, however I need an image. If anyone here could please take an image of any of the restaurants on the list, please do. Thank you in advance, History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for working on that! Just a heads up that South Korea does not have freedom of panorama, so images of the exteriors/interiors of restaurants may not be allowed on Commons.
See this guide; maybe it'll be helpful for you. I think Flickr may be your best shot. It has a list of websites you may be able to search for a pic for; I think photos of dishes served in the restaurants may be copyright free? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of architecture can be uploaded locally with {{FoP-USonly|South Korea}}. I can search for freely licensed images on Daum and Naver, or go take a few photos myself. Is there any preference for a particular restaurant? plicit 08:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any restaurant is fine honestly. Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded some images in c:Category:Soseoul Hannam for now. My searches are a bit drier than I was expecting, particularly of the buildings themselves. I'll do more digging tomorrow. plicit 09:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, @Explicit. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also uploaded files for c:Category:Auprès (restaurant). There's a photo of the building which the restaurant is in, which I will be uploading locally later this evening. plicit 06:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice

The article Democratic Republican Party (South Korea, 1997) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced, and unimproved, for more than 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. This defunct political party's share of the vote was a rounding error.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:KO discussion

[edit]

Hello, I posted a discussion on WT:MOSKO#Titles of works: casing. This affects almost every article about South Korean pop culture, as well many history and North Korea topics.

Tl;dr: "should we use sentence case or title case when romanizing titles of works"? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to disambiguation pages for Korean given names

[edit]

I would like to remove these from disambiguation pages for Korean given names (Ha-yoon, Seo-jun, etc.):

  1. Meaning, etymology, and gender
    1. Korean given names are usually made-up words. That is, a certain name written in hangul usually does not have a "fixed" meaning, etymology, gender, etc.
    2. For gender, I don't deny that there is some tendency, but there is no definite answer.
  2. Mentions of List of Hanja for Use in Personal Names (인명용 한자표)
    1. This is a prescriptive list, not a descriptive list.
      1. The list shows what characters are currently allowed to be used in newly registered names (newly born babies and legal name changes). It does not show what are actually used in names. Some characters in the list may not actually be used in any name.
      2. The list was first introduced on April 1, 1991. Before that date, there was no restriction on registering hanja names. So hanja names that were registered before that date may contain characters not even in the list.
    2. The list sometimes grows (initially about 2800 characters, now more than 9300). The Supreme Court of South Korea sometimes adds characters to the list. It is not really possible to update each disambiguation page every time the list gets updated.
  3. Mentions of specific hanja (single character or combination of two or more characters; see Jin-woo#Hanja and Yeo-jin#Hanja for examples; this also includes the hanja parameter of Template:Infobox Korean name)
    1. There are literally tens or hundreds of possible hanja forms for a single hangul name. Listing one or some hanja forms can give the false impression that those forms are somehow more "representative" than other hanja forms.

172.56.232.40 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opinions on #2 and #3, but #1 is only a problem because people are getting away with adding unsourced content or badly sourced content such as from baby naming websites. The language of how meaning and etymology is described is often in need of change and sometimes removal; however there should be nothing stopping information on the subjects being added if it can be well-sourced. Same with gender prevalence. There is a difference between saying "____ is a male name" and "82.3% of people named ____ are male". Ike Lek (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About meaning and etymology:
As I said, Korean given names are usually made-up words. That is, they are usually semantically opaque. Usually, the only person who knows the real meaning and real etymology of a certain name is the creator of that name (and additionally a very few people who heard (and still remember) the meaning and etymology from that creator).
Even a single hangul name can have multiple meanings and etymologies (and again, the creator of a name is the only person who truly knows which meaning and etymology are intended).
(Koreans do not have culturally common names like John or Muhammad.)
So the meaning and etymology of a name should not be included.
About gender:
Okay, then I guess that can be included as long as reliable statistics are cited. However, instead of directly defining the gender of a name (like "X is a male name"), it should be in the format like "among people named X, y% is male and z% is female" (while citing reliable statistics, of course).
172.56.232.40 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe etymology should not be the norm for Korean given names unless there is a specific reason to include it. As far as hanja inclusion goes, I do think it is important for English-speaking audiences to be told that a name has tons of potential spellings in Korean, when it may only have a couple in English. Ike Lek (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding hanja, I think "different depending on hanja" is sufficient. This already exists on many pages. 172.56.232.66 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For #1, I don't think a blanket restriction is appropriate. Some names will have clearer meanings, etymologies, and genders than others. Like "Ha-neul" has a clear meaning and etymology; excluding it there would be strange. I don't even think we need to define a policy for this; the policy should be that whatever is appropriately sourceable and correct should go in. That's just the general policy for info on Wikipedia. If gender, etymology, or meaning are not clear then claims about it should be either excluded or made conservatively with sources.
For #2, (edit: deleted an idea I don't agree with anymore) how is this list typically used?
For #3, I agree with you on this. There are way too many possible combinations and they're not particularly encyclopedic or useful. This is a bit similar to like listing possible combinations of letters in English, e.g. "ae" or "al". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For #1: Then do the names 미정, 수영, 시연, 여진, 연석, 지연, 현미, etc. mean "undecided", "swimming", "demonstration", "aftershock", "curb", "delay", "brown rice", etc. respectively? If one does not agree with these, then how can one be so sure that the name 하늘 always means "sky"?
For #2: As I wrote above. Basically, this is how that list is used: "if you want to register a hanja name right at this moment, you must pick from these". 172.56.232.40 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer for #1 is that unlike the other names mentioned, 하늘 is a pure Korean word & name, meaning it actually has an etymology as it isn't a bunch of probabilities of various different hanja characters. This textbook probably explains it better. [1] In other words, they're pretty semantically transparent. I don't see a reason to proscribe including etymologies, as most of the Hanja-character based name articles don't assign them an etymology as it would vary for every different combination. The example Seo-jun article that you gave states that the meaning of the name is "Different depending on Hanja". Pure Korean names such as Bit-na or Da-som actually do have etymology and meaning and those usually are included in the article. #1 seems to be a bad solution for a problem that doesn't seem to exist, and would create a new problem of not allowing to show the etymology and meaning of pure Korean names. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is possible to create a name 하늘 which does not mean "sky". For example,
  • "always summer" (하 (hanja 夏; "summer") + 늘 (native Korean; "always"))
  • "always the lowest" (하 (下; "lowest") + 늘 ("always")) – which is quite the opposite of "sky"
And it is possible to create a name 다솜 which means "all cotton" (다 all + 솜 cotton) or "lots of cotton" (다(多) lots of + 솜 cotton).
Creating names like the above is not prohibited. Any name can be individually crafted. So even native Korean names (or names that "look like" native Korean names) do not have a "fixed" meaning and etymology.
I don't see a reason to proscribe including etymologies, as most of the Hanja-character based name articles don't assign them an etymology & #1 seems to be a bad solution for a problem that doesn't seem to exist
Some pages do try to give possible meanings and etymologies, like Jin-woo#Hanja and Yeo-jin#Hanja. 172.56.232.66 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to create a random, nonsensical Hanja-character based name that resembles a pure Korean name? Sure. But that wouldn't change the etymology of the original name. Just like how if one named a baby boy Derrick after a derrick, the lifting device, or named a Dick after a penis, it won't change the etymology of those names. Pure Korean names existed before Koreans even adopted hangul or hanja, meaning that their etymologies can't come from a hanja-character based name.
For the second part, I don't have a huge problem with showing examples of common hanja combinations for a name as long as its not defined as the sole fixed meaning for that name. Those articles show that those are only possible ways to write those names in hanja. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily "random, nonsensical" (for example, "always the lowest" can be "always be humble/modest"). And it does not really matter even if it is "random, nonsensical".
How do you know for sure that the intended meaning (or one of the intended meanings) of a name written as 하늘 in hangul is always "sky"? What if someone created a name 하늘 but never intended "sky"? Is there a requirement for a name written as 하늘 in hangul to always have the same meaning and etymology as the common noun spelled the same? No, there is no such requirement.
Given that any name can be individually crafted, we should avoid making assumptions (that is, providing (or trying to provide) a certain meaning or etymology for a certain name should be avoided).
For the second part, I am against mentioning any specific hanja form. As I wrote above (#3), listing one or some hanja forms can give the false impression that those forms are somehow more "representative" than other hanja forms. 172.56.232.95 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original meaning behind the pure Korean names is not going to change, as they originated before the hanja-character names made to resemble the pure Korean names. It does not matter if someone later creates a name based on the original pure Korean name that has a different meaning. By that logic if a Korean creates a new name of 安儺, or Anna, made to resemble the Western name of the same name, would the original meaning for the Western name of Anna disappear? Should we get rid of all etymology sections for all personal names, since a Korean could create a hanja name based on that name that now has a different meaning from the original? ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are still assuming that a name must have the same meaning and etymology as a common noun if the name and the common noun are written the same (and you are selectively applying this when the common noun is a native Korean word). As I said, there is no such requirement. You need to stop making assumptions.
if a Korean creates a new name of 安儺, or Anna, made to resemble the Western name of the same name, would the original meaning for the Western name of Anna disappear?
Again, we don't know if the creator intended the Western name or not. You need to stop making assumptions.
Should we get rid of all etymology sections for all personal names
Not necessarily. But regarding Korean given names, we should avoid making assumptions. 172.56.232.166 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and disagree with both of you.
  1. I think IP is right that 하늘 and similar names can be given new meanings, even if the process of doing so is silly. But that doesn't stop people from doing silly stuff; see kira kira name.
  2. However, I partly agree with CountHacker that the total exclusion of the original and most likely interpretation of a name seems odd. If 99% of like 1000 RS widely attribute some meaning to a name, what argument is there for not mentioning the meaning at all in the article? I don't think consistency with other articles where names have more fluid meanings is an adequate reason.
Tl;dr I stick with my original opinion for #1. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kept thinking about this, and would like to revise my removal proposal above:

  1. Meaning, etymology, and gender
    1. Meaning and etymology: Remove for now. But if lots of reliable sources widely attribute some meaning to a name, then that can be (re-)added in the format such as "it is commonly believed/perceived that the name A means B" (while citing lots of reliable sources). Do not exclude the "it is commonly believed/perceived that" part.
    2. Gender: Remove for now. But if reliable statistics are cited, then percentages can be (re-)added in the format such as "among people named X, y% is male and z% is female" (while citing reliable statistics). In any case, the gender of a name should not be directly defined (i.e. should not say something like "X is a masculine name").
  2. Mentions of List of Hanja for Use in Personal Names (인명용 한자표): Remove and cannot be (re-)added.
  3. Mentions of specific hanja: Remove and cannot be (re-)added.

172.56.232.40 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Korean television name now semi-automatic

[edit]

Hello, we recently completed converting every usage of the older {{Infobox Korean television name}} to the newer version. The newer version has semi-automatic romanization of Korean.

The main takeaway is that {{Infobox Korean television name}} now uses semi-automatic romanization. You don't need to put /auto in the name of the template to get semi-automatic romanization because the /auto version has been merged into the main template, so they're the same thing now. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Webtoon pages

[edit]

I've been trying to clean up Korean Webtoon pages and noticed a note on infobox. It should include the relevant language (Korean) only while the others are unnecessary. Is there MOS or has there been a consensus regarding that? ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 06:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this note? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Webtoon parameter on Template:Infobox manhwa. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 15:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand It should include the relevant language (Korean) only while the others are unnecessary. Could you rephrase it? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter says: <--ONLY list relevant language(s). Other language(s) IS NOT necessary.--> ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 13:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that message at all on the template documentation grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clariniie Based on my observation, that hidden comment appears only on articles (e.g., 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6) created by Shockingman173223, who has also created the majority of the Korean Webtoon articles here. This suggests the comment may reflect a personal editorial preference. That said, it may be best to ask @Shockingman173223 to clarify why the comment was added during article creation, especially since it doesn't appear in the template's documentation. If Shockingman173223 doesn't respond (say, within a week), I'd say it's generally safe to remove it. However, if a dispute arises from its removal, you should follow the WP:BRD cycle. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 14:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Paper9oll grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please update and add reliable sources to this article? Bearian (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs splitting

[edit]

Consensus was established that 2024 South Korean martial law crisis should be split into multiple articles, but this has yet to be executed. Is anyone willing to do this? Would be a big help; political fallout is still ongoing and endlessly big. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Axis of Upheaval#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yun (Korean surname)#Requested move 18 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 08:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hyunjin#Requested move 18 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 13:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]