Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

Proposed deletion of Seowoncheon

Notice

The article Seowoncheon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. It's a run of the mill "fork of a creek."

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) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Opposed; please see edit comment for my deletion of the prod grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Bearian Take it to AfD, since no sources have been added. Unless this is improved, a redirect may be warranted to deal with WP:V/WP:OR issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm ok with keeping it, if it can be sourced. I'll get back to you both. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I looked a second time and found no reliable English language sources. If nobody is willing to translate it from Korean language sources, then it's by definition not verified. Bearian (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Grapesurgeon, can you please add the source that you found to the article? I can't find it. How much time do you need? This weekend? June 15? Please let us know. Bearian (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Bearian@Piotrus The source referred to in grapesurgeon's edit summary is [1]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That's nice, but I'm not going to be responsible for adding something I can't read here. Someone else has to do that. Bearian (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand. My point was simply that WP:NATFEAT is met here, so an AfD would be pointless. I, too, would have to work off of machine translation, which seems to be giving me substantially different information from what's in the article right now, so I'll wait for grapesurgeon to work on this. Anyhow, thank you for bringing this to the community's attention; I am sure this will result in the article ending up better than it was when you found it. Toadspike [Talk] 11:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I take that back – this article seems to be about a stream in a completely different part of Korea (Cheonan rather than Daegu). I started rewriting the lead before figuring this out, this is what I had when I left off:

is a stream which flows through Dongnam District, South Chungcheong Province, South Korea.[1]

Not sure if we should hijack this article for this "new" stream or try to find information on the intended stream. Toadspike [Talk] 11:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Toadspike [Talk] 11:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It's odd that this stream has a stub when the stream it's a tributary to does not. I'm wondering if merging somehow to Miryang River would work, if nothing substantial turns up. CMD (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
As a specific response to the idea of hijacking articles for topics of the same name, please do not do this. I once spent some time disentangling two different Indian villages and it's a headache to go through the edit history and figure out what's what. CMD (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Bearian @Piotrus
Toadspike is right; I was wrong on which stream was being referred to. I think a deletion discussion can go ahead, can't find many other sources in Korean.
However, I'd like to note that WP:OR and WP:V issues aren't causes for deletion. WP:DEL-REASON. In general I try to avoid spending too much time on minor articles like this when we're so shortstaffed. In this thread it felt like I was being pressured to improve an article that gets a few views a year, otherwise a deletion would happen when there was no strong policy reason to delete. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Just saying that lack of references is a strong policy reason to delete an article. WP:V is not optional (although we are of course lax in enforcing it, and were much more in the past). As for notability, WP:NATFEAT was cited and it clearly talks about sourcing too, so right now that article fails NATFEAT. If nobody can improve it, it should go as a non-notable geo feature and, frankly, a possible WP:HOAX (no sources). PS. I use the word hoax in the meaning "a possible error", not "intentional error" (wiki use of this is inconsistent). Just claryfing, as it is a pet peevy of mine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Hm you're right, I just learned about WP:ATD-E. Still, I wouldn't say it's a strong reason; still relies on consensus in the discussion. It could go either way in reduction to stub or deletion depending on discussion. Either way, that's enough litigation on minor article. I'd vote to delete if deletion discussion happened. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest WP:ATD-R to Iseo-myeon, Cheongdo County, where it is mentioned (unless sourcing is found and added). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I have created an article on the Cheongdocheon that includes a short paragraph on the Seowoncheon. I have boldly redirected there as explained on Talk:Seowoncheon. I am happy to revert if there is an objection.
To state the obvious, in 2006 when I created this article it was not yet standard practice to cite uncontroversial information. But of course in the ensuing two decades we've all learned that there are a lot of valuable uses for inline citations besides just providing support for those statements that are likely to be challenged as WP:V requires. Not least of which is the difficulty of figuring out what your source was when a statement is challenged 19 years later.
The causal link between the short-staffed nature of today's Wikipedia that leaves so little energy for long-tail articles, the ever-slowing pace of article creation and maintenance, and the ever more exclusionary application of policy is left as an exercise for the reader. -- Visviva (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "서원천 - 디지털천안문화대전". Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture. 2013. Retrieved 2025-06-04.

Hangul article

The Hangul article needs a lot of work if anyone's interested. There's tons of good writings on it in English, so even if you're not fluent you should be able to get it to GA.

Also, I'm willing to offer a financial reward if you get it to GA; just post on my talk page if you're interested. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe I'll show it to my students as motivation tool, although they are not eligible (they don't do GAs...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
As always a sincere thank you for your and your students' editing. However for this article I would maybe discourage that they edit it; article is so important that experienced editors and native speakers of English preferred. Just needs one editor to basically rewrite whole thing clean slate grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Right. Also generally I gave up on students doing research, outside exceptional cases, their language skills are simply not good enough, translations are enough. Usually from English to their native language. But each year we get a few decent entries on en too. But for big topics like the ones you want, yep, we need someone else. I don't think I am that interested in this - so many other things to do that are a bit more interesting, I fear. Korean science fiction is probably the broadest I'll go with Korean stuff (for now, at least). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Yea I agree. Thanks again for doing all this 🙂 grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Korean Heritage Room, Cathedral of Learning

Anybody interested in saving a draft from deletion? Not sure it's any good, but from a skim it seemed to need wikification, but maybe well-written(?) not sure if maybe has copy paste sort of problems... User:D Kirlston - talk 02:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft looks disastrous but might be salvageable -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm assuming the random numbers among the text are reference numbers? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hangul on Chinese character disambiguation pages

WT:NPP recently brought the disambiguation (DAB) page 总理 to my attention (still a mess). While improving it I noticed that some Chinese character DAB pages list Hangul alongside the various Chinese characters, which is a bit of a problem. For instance, 圓 lists the Hangul 원, even though 원 is a redirect, not to that DAB page, but to the Won DAB page. I think this should generally be prohibited, since any overlap between the meanings of Chinese characters and Hangul are almost always incomplete, becausd the former are semantic and the latter are phonetic. I'd like to hear others' thoughts, though. Toadspike [Talk] 22:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think for disambig pages like that that are valid Hanja (i.e. no Korean readings should be present on like Simplified Chinese characters that are not used in Korea), having a link to a Korean page may be appropriate. While it's possible that there's multiple Korean readings of Chinese character(s), I think that's fine; the same sometimes happens within Chinese. Similarly, I think various semantic interpretations being possible is fine too; imo that's what disambiguation pages are for, to link different semantic meanings of the same bit of text.
As a broad argument, Chinese characters were once the main and/or only script used in Korea. I think it makes sense to have characters link to concepts that are Korea-specific, as the characters would have carried that meaning at some point.
Tl;dr I think Korean readings of Chinese characters should be ok on those disambig pages, with some caveats. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think I agree with all of that. We should have Korean entries (articles) on these DAB pages. My concern was about including the Hangul bolded and in the lead. It should be redundant with the Hanja, and in the Won/Yuan case above it's kinda misleading, since the Hangul itself goes to a different page. Toadspike [Talk] 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Ohhh I see. Hm.
In the case of 圓, 원 shouldn't be linked in the lead (it actually links to a Wiktionary definition). But even if it linked to 원, you're right it would be strange to link to a phonetic term that can have many unrelated meanings.
I'm not sure whether it's good to broadly prohibit Hangul spellings alongside the main Chinese characters in the lead. I'm leaning towards prohibiting and asking people to mention Korean terms in individual bullet points. Think this may be better for avoiding the complications you bring up. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent proposed changes to MOS:KO

Recently proposed several changes to MOS:KO. These changes will have significant impact on many articles, including/especially those related to pop culture, so please read through and voice opinions if any.

  1. Hanja lead (already boldly implemented to MOS, but still reversible if concerns)
  2. MOS:HANJAHANZI modifications (think uncontroversial)
  3. 2 romanization display rules (possibly controversial; impact on pop culture articles)

grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

AI use on the Korean Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#AI use on ko wiki (WikiVault) may be of interest to others grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Please show me how to navigate the National Assembly website

Hello everyone. I found an article published three years ago that mentioned a bill in the National Assembly that it translated as "the K-Belt Initiative": https://semianalysis.com/2022/06/13/why-america-will-lose-semiconductors/ In short, South Koreans wanted to give semiconductor companies tax exemptions to encourage domestic production, while at the same time making sure as much money as possible went into R&D rather than back to investors. I could not find any other articles on the K-Belt Initiative on Wikipedia or on search engines, and I hope you can help me find sources that I can put through machine translators. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Full name appears to be "K-semiconductor belt initiative". Apparently it was a government initiative during Moon Jae-in's presidency and includes a series of amendments to existing acts rather than a single bill.[2], [3]. One example cited is a revision bill for the Act on Restriction on Special Cases Concerning Taxation.([4])
You might wanna consider that there has been two South Korean presidents since Moon, and the initiative may be obsolete. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that clarifies things somewhat, but please write out the Korean you translated "K-semiconductor belt initiative" from so I can search for untranslated sources. I will look for books about Moon and try to find someone who has written about these bills. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lee Jae-myung#Requested move 19 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lee Jae-myung#Requested move 19 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kia K4 (2024)#Requested move 8 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kia K4 (2024)#Requested move 8 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Korean family clans played a crucial role in pre-modern Korean politics (and especially during the later years of Joseon, where a handful of powerful families enjoyed a monopoly). Most contemporary sources on Joseon-era figures shows which clan said person was in.

That being said, would the "|family" parameter available in most {{infobox}} templates (other than cases like {{infobox officeholder}}, where the "|blank=" parameter is available) be adequate for the labeling of family clans in infoboxes? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person#TemplateData ctrl+f "family" I'd say worth listing if their family background had a significant role in their lives. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Na Woon-gyu#Requested move 20 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Na Woon-gyu#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about topicality at Talk:When life gives you tangerins

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:When life gives you tangerins#Topicality.

Editors are needed to weigh in if it is appropriate to mention support and guest actors ranking in Topicality and Buzzranking. Some editors insist that only Main leads ranking worth mentioning while me and some other editors against this. Because this drama is span 4 generations and multiple actors involvment I think support actors rankings also worth mention. Илона И (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Cabinet Secretariat (North Korea)

Please add reliable sources in this draft. СтасС (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for an answer!--СтасС (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dirty Work (single album)#Requested move 7 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dirty Work (single album)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Fanpage

Hello! I hope you can look into Kim Seon-ho’s page. I notice that one editor has been editing the page and seems to be a fan. The lede is full of mention of awards (mostly fan-voted) that I’ve seen other editors remove from other pages for being non notable. I think it’s full of fancruft and undue weight to appear more significant. There’s also mention of upcoming projects in the lede (and a whole section for it) that I thought is not allowed in Wiki (not sure about the specific rule for that). There were attempts to put FANPOV tags but they were reverted by that same editor without improvements. Anyway, I hope some of you can look into it. Thanks! RickAnsty (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The article is not protected - you are welcome to make changes to the article yourself as you see appropriate. RachelTensions (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Belated notification of a discussion of interest

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)

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

Proposed deletion of Democratic Republican Party (South Korea, 1997)

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)

Image Request

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).

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)
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)
Any restaurant is fine honestly. Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
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)
Thank you very much, @Explicit. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
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)

Television series

Moved from Talk:Kim Seon-ho filmography § Television series

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

"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]
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Archive_28&oldid=1304370297"