Korea NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

What would you suggest in terms of naming conventions for cases in which a new (name of an) institution, company or location comes up within a continuous text passage? (But for which exists no own Wikipedia page...) In such cases I would normally - to be most precise - like to add the official Hangeul name in parenthesis. This way, later cross-referencing and general identification of the institution/location in question might hopefully improved. As this pertains to the actual WP content and thus to neither to the article title nor potential template boxes (of which there usually may only be one?), what is the common practice in this regard? Adding Hangeul in parenthesis is (imho) sensible, until one has to also contemplate if and in which order (where) to use the English abbreviation of the romanized / official English name. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that there is a consistent convention for parenthesis content, as non-romanized names sometimes are prefixed by the term "Hangul:" or more broadly by "Korean:" and then again by no term. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:An Ji-Man which affects this guideline. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles#Romanization_of_North_Korean_names.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-eup can be omitted.

I disagree this sentence in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Towns, neighbourhoods and villages. Because there are many disambiguation towns (eup) like Cheorwon(철원), Gangjin(강진), Yecheon(예천), Geochang(거창), Hadong(하동), Goseong(고성), Yeongdong(영동) etc. So, people can be confused --ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Bridges section is empty. How about to add this? For bridges, the full unhyphenated Korean name including daegyo or gyo should be used, as in Incheondaegyo. If disambiguation is needed, "bridge" can be added -- see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This convention applies to bridges without an accepted English name. If a different name has been established in common English usage, it should be used, per Wikipedia:Use common names. --ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 02:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, of course, that "Chosŏn'gŭl" is the preferred native name of the Hangul script in official North Korean usage, but why are we following that convention in North Korean articles? Surely, our naming practices should follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Is "Chosŏn'gŭl" ever used in lieu of "Hangul" in a majority of reliable English-speaking sources? As far as I can see, this script is only ever called "Hangul" in international English usage; that's its established English name, and for all I can see it's the only significant one it has. Official native terminology should play no role in our naming choices.

Can anybody point out if and when a consensus for this odd usage was established on Wikipedia? I can't find it discussed anywhere, but it seems to have been around for quite a while, apparently since before 2006 according to the history of ((Infobox Korean name)). This does not seem to be in line with our current policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no feedback here for three days despite notifications on several relevant articles and noticeboards, I intend to go ahead and remove the "north=Chosŏn'gŭl|old=Hunminjeongeum" parameters from the relevant templates, ((Infobox Korean name)) and ((Korean)). Will post further notifications on the template talkpages and wait for a bit more first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms also find use in ((Infobox Chinese)) via Module:Infobox multi-lingual name in function ibox_mln_ko(). Perhaps notification at that infobox template's talk page is appropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the context=north and that then changes how a few fields in the Infobox are displayed? I'm not very well versed in various Wiki policy so I cannot speak of when/how a consensus was made or the rational at that time. I think the reason why previous editors added that code was, at least at that time and quite possibly still today, the English literature on a number of North Korea related content used some of the North's specific spellings as that Korea is a different Korea and things are spelled differently there. Well, there and Yanbian China as well as those native Korean speakers typically used North style words and spellings. As Kpop and South Korean imports have passed those by the North into that area of China, their spellings are changing. Yes, in English South Korean Romanization is normally Hangul but in a North Korea context the rules are different and I honestly think the pages that display it different help me to better understand that context better. Note: I don't check talk pages often so I'll put a note on my calendar to stop by here again in a few days. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to the way the names themselves are presented or transliterated (I understand we use different Latin transliterations for North Korean and South Korean names, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, and there were repeated discussions about that). What I'm speaking of is merely the label naming the writing system, which was presented as "Hangul" for South Korean names, but "Chosongul" for North Korean ones, even though both labels refer to the exact same thing, the common Korean script. I have found this discussion in the archives in the meantime. It was a conversation between three editors back in 2005 and seems to have been the only one where this was ever discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sawol, Rickinasia who are probably our best experts on Korean. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I never follow these kind of talk pages unless I stumble across one by mistake. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to leave it as it is. While the term "Hangul" is undoubtably used more than "Chosongul", "Chosongul" is what it's called in North Korea. Using Korean terms for North Korean things that are not used in North Korea is not desirable. It would be misleading to tell readers that the North Korean alphabet is called "Hangul". It's not called in North Korea. What next? Calling North Korean places and people by South Korean names? This is just dogmatic and will lead to misinformation and confusion. No, please, no!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no such thing as a "North Korean alphabet". There is only a single alphabet, the Korean one, and its name in English is "Hangul" (or simply "Korean", which is something we could also use just as well). Our naming policy is to use the names our English readers are most familiar with, not the names that happen to be used natively in some other country. There's nothing "misleading" or "confusing" about that: WP:USEENGLISH. I don't see why we should want to make an exception from this general principle just for this country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept using the "Korean alphabet" as this is more informative for the ordinary viewer. However, the writing of Korean is different in the North rather than the South. And using the term "Hangul" implies that this is what it is called in North Korea, which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About simply calling it "Korean" (especially in the inline ((Korean)) template): the more I think about it, the more I think that would actually the most reader-friendly and consistent approach. The question is whether we should then still link the term to the article about the script, or rather to the article about the Korean language, which would be analogous to what we do with other foreign-script templates of that kind. I'm less sure about the ((Infobox Korean name)). As for the differences in the actual writing practices, I don't see how those are relevant here: they are quite minor, and in no way lead to a point where we'd have to say that the northern "Chosongul" and the southern "Hangul" are actually two different scripts. These are not two different things, but a single thing that happens to have two different native names, independently of the minor differences in the actual letters. And as for the perception that "using the term 'Hangul' implies that this is what it is called in North Korea" – well, no, it simply doesn't. Using the term Hangul in English implies no more and no less than that that is its English name. If you disagree, I'd have to ask you to show actual sources: international English publications that do what you propose doing here, using "Chosongul" when writing about North Korean topics. Naming practices on Wikipedia are supposed to do just that: mirror what our reliable sources do. I haven't been able to find any among the sources we cite in our relevant articles. Even the book source we cite in the infobox of the North Korea article for the fact that "Chosongul" is the country's official script doesn't actually do what you want us to do; it uses "Hangul" to make that statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack Upland's conclusion that "hangul" is misleading in North Korean context, but for a slightly different reason. Both Hangul and Chosongul literally translate to "Korean script", but the connotations are strongly with South and North Korea, respectively, because these are the respective names of Korea used in these countries. Thus "Hangul" in North Korean contexts is, while not outright wrong, a bit awkward. It's a bit like calling kanji "Chinese script", which we fortunately don't have to do because "kanji" is so established in English-language sources. For the same reason, I'll write choson-ot instead of hanbok, when the context is NK, even though the latter is the common "English" spelling.

As for using simply "Korean", I note that many equivalent templates for many non-latin script languages do that. That would point to general support toward such a move. But personally, I find the solution in all of these languages awkward. "Moon Jae-in", "Mun Jae-in", "Mun Chae-in" "문재인文", and "在寅" are all Korean; the first three are romanized Korean, the others are Korean rendered in hangul and Korean using hanja, respectively. All are Korean.

Fut.Perf., naming conventions are first and foremost about article titles, and we're not discussing about moving anything here. In terms of article titles, WP:COMMONNAME is the only way to go. Sure, it's good practice to use the common name in other articles as well – when applicable. But this isn't a hard fast rule. Consider this especially in light of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles: we've agreed to waive a uniform common name approach and use North Korean spelling and romanization (MR) for North Korea articles, and South Korean spelling and romanization (RR) for South Korea articles. Here, consistency across natural sets of topics trumps a universal approach.

A note on sources. The standard practice in anglophone academic Korean studies is to use MR for both South and North Korea articles, whereas sources originating in each country tends to stick to their own romanizations. Consequentially, a blind "follow the RS" approach would counterintuitively probably mean just using MR for everything, even though that's not the official script in South Korea any more. My point is, that this is primarily about what makes sense within the context of a set of articles rather than what is the overall common name (so more of a "WP:ENGVAR" thing than simply WP:USEENGLISH). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop, thanks for your thoughtful response and sorry for the late reply. I still disgree. Contrary to what you say, the principle of "use common English names" does apply to article text just as much as it does to article titles. It does so, not because of this or that WP policy, but because that's the only way to produce reader-friendly articles. We follow the naming practices of our sources, because that means following the principle of "least astonishment" for our readers. Speaking of astonishment, I'm a person fairly knowledgable about languages and writing systems, so I did know what "Hangul" means (that being the common English name), but I'm damned if I ever heard or saw the term Chosongul before stumbling across it on some Wikipedia article. It was completely opaque to me and I had to follow the links to figure out what was going on. That's not the way Wikipedia ought to work.

As for the matter of Romanization systems (which, I repeat, is not what I wanted to discuss here, but since you bring it up:) if, as you say, there is a conflict between usage in "anglophone academic Korean studies" and "sources originating in each country" about the spellings of South Korean names, then the decision between those is still a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. It may very well make sense to favor the non-academic local sources over the others, if those are considered to be what English readers are more likely to be familiar with. But that's not an exception to the "follow the sources" rule; it's precisely its correct application.

So, at the end of the day, the challenge still stands: no matter how well-considered the opinion of Wikipedia editors may be that using "Hangul" for the North is somehow "inconsistent" or "inappropriate", without sources to support such a practice that opinion is simply not relevant. If only "Chosongul" was appropriate in that context, then surely we ought to be able to point to reliable sources that use it. I haven't seen a single one so far. Can you point me to any? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack Upland. "Hangul" is South Korea's political name for the Korean alphabet (as noted above, South Korea calls itself "han-guk" in Korean, whereas North Korea is "Joseon"). North Korea does not use hangul, it uses Joseongul/Chosŏngŭl. Alternatively, to avoid the controversy, it could just be "in Korean." Added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC) edited 7/6/2019[reply]

I also happen to completely agree with @Incogreader:, @Finnusertop:, and @Jack Upland:. We should use "Chosungul" for the North and "Hangul" for the South. If not that, then we should just use the neutral all-encompassing term "Korean" for all articles and link to page on the language and not the script as we usually don't link to Latinate or Cyrillic, for instance. And local considerations absolutely do matter, which is why we use UK English on UK-related articles, for instance (thus why the article on the England national football team is located under that name and not "England national soccer team" for example). And for romanization we use RR on South Korean and MR on North Korean too. Lastly, invoking WP:USEENGLISH is odd here, since neither "Hangul" or "Chosongul" are English words, or if they are, then they are both equally English words. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge still stands: Sources, please. Without reliable sources using such a naming practice, any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS favouring it is irrelevant and invalid in light of our general naming policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re to your last point: No, quite clearly, "Hangul" is the most common name in English, and as such it is an English word (though of course not a native but a borrowed one). It's even in Merriam-Webster's dictionary [1]. "Chosongul" isn't, because nobody outside Wikipedia uses it in English. Challenge still stands: Sources please, or literally nothing of what you've been saying here has any relevance whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary says that "Hangul" appeared in English in the 1950s (i.e., after the division), and prior to that, the alphabet was known as "Onmun".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• One cannot discuss about (Hangeul=Chosŏn'gŭl) in isolation. There is also 한자 (=Hanja-Hancha). Don't even try to translate the later as "Chinese". And thus the former cannot be translated as "Korean". In fact, the best educated translation of Hangeul/Chosŏn'gŭl would be "our writing, as of now" since Han-geul alludes to HanMinguk (대한밍욱) and Chosŏn'gŭl alludes to ChosŏnMin...guk. As a result, "Hangul" is not how SK or NK are (separately) describing their (common) alphabet. Moreover, this term was coined by the 1911 anti-Japanese activists and therefore doesn't take a SK/NK side. As a result, Hangul can be branded as a politically correct neutral English term. Being also the far most usual wording in English, this term could be used everywhere. But this would undermine the rule: use NK methods when writing about NK, taken as an argument to keep the dual romanization RR/McC. Ah lala, nothing is simple! Pldx1 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have rules for typical 3 syllables (1 family + 2 given) names, but nothing regarding not typical names. What with 4 syllables names? Example: 3 syllables given names. Should we write it same as 2 syllables names (hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized)? E.g. Hong Ah-mo-gae. If this is correct, it should be added to rules. Similar question to 2 syllables family names. Usually are written as a joined word, but no written rule regarding that. E.g. Dokgo Young-jae. KarlHeintz (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 syllables family names such that Dokgo, Dongbang, Hwangbo, Hwangmok, Jegal, Mangjeol, Namgung, Sagong, Seomun, Seonu, and so on. They have already established themselves with no hyphen in English Wikipedia. There are 3 syllables (2 family + 1 given) names like Hwangbo In. Hyphenating the syllables as Hwang-bo In puts in confusion of family name Hwangbo and given name Hwang-bo. Sawol (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2 syllables family names I agree that there is established rule in English Wikipedia to write it as joined word without hyphen. My point in this case is that this rule should be added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) page. Generally in Wikipedia this rule is followed, but I have seen e.g. Namgung written as Nam Goong. But main problem is with 3 syllables given names, because these names are usually are written wrong: first syllable of given name is treated as family name and given name is made from last 2 syllables. In example I gave before: Hong Ah Mo-gae. Example from modern names: 임메아리 in Wikipedia is written as Im Me Ah-ri, according to me should it be Im Me-ah-ri. KarlHeintz (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of articles relating to Japan or Korea or whatever countries, the term "Sea of Japan" should be used following the international custom since this is an English Wikipedia. Instead, the term "East Sea" which is a term in common use in only Korea should be used in Korean Wikipedia alone. Here's a previous instance. "East Asia/Southeast Asia :: Korea, South". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
Eddal (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"East Sea" is not a term in common use even in Korea. It is called "동해" (Donghae) in Korean. "East Sea" is a mere English translation of Korean name "동해" (Donghae).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with putting down both Sea of Japan and "East sea" from a neutral perspective. The term "Donghae" or "East sea" is merely adopted in Korea only. Whether related to Korea or not, Sea of Japan only should be used as Sea of Japan is in common use in English and widely accepted in many large intergovernmental organizations. This is English Wikipedia, NOT Korean Wikipedia. Eddal (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Eddal. I am not sure of how to parse your last message. Are you saying: "this is the Wikipedia in English language, not the Wikipedia in Korean language" or are you saying "this is the Wikipedia of U.S., not the Wikipedia of T.H.E.M." ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pldx1. Of course, I mean the former. Obviously, English is spoken not only in the U.S. but all over the world. (I thought a.n.y.o.n.e can edit Wikipedia, but actually not correct ?) Eddal (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Eddal. This sea should be called as "Sea of Stupidity" to acknowledge how ineffective were the two governments of Korea when arguing against the name "Sea of Japan". Seen from Vladivostok, this is rather the "South sea". Proposing the "Whale sea" would have been politically correct, and probably successful, but this wasn't done. Have a good day ! Pldx1 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current instructions on Sea of Japan is not in line with naming policies and should be completely struck. As long as the page name is Sea of Japan, that is the only form that should be used in running text in Wikipedia. The exceptions would be 1) a mention on the Sea of Japan page in the same manner we cover non-English names for any geographic entity and 2) the article on the dispute itself. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• +1 to what Khajidha says. The rule (about using parenthetical "East Sea" after "Sea of Japan" in Korea-related articles) was created back in 2005 or thereabouts, through a "vote" between a handful of participants, and hasn't kept up with the development of our general naming guidelines and policies. As such, it is at best a "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" that's no longer valid, as it contradicts the larger, project-wide consensus about how such things should be handled ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"). The actual rule we need to follow is "use common English names", nothing else. The only valid argument for retaining the "East Sea" variant would be if a large portion of reliable English-language literature could be shown to use this variant when dealing with Korean topics, but apparently they don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are Shin Saimdang (with no hyphens) and Lee Bom-so-ri (with hyphens).

Well, a given name with three or more syllables are not common, but what should be the default policy when there is no personal preference? Should hyphens be inserted between every single syllable (like Bom-so-ri above), or not (like Saimdang above)?

I would like to leave a suggestion: When there is no personal preference, do not insert a hyphen in given names that are three or more syllables long.

(Personally I'm against inserting a hyphen even in two-syllable given names (e.g. Hong Gildong instead of Hong Gil-dong), but inserting a hyphen in two-syllable given names seems to be what English-language media usually do.) 182.172.59.84 (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the #Romanization of names section above. Here is another suggestion with that section in consideration:

For personal names, when there is no personal preference and no established English spelling, join syllables (i.e. do not insert a hyphen or space), with the following exceptions:

• Use a space between the family name and the given name
• Insert a hyphen between syllables in a two-syllable given name, with only the first syllable capitalized (e.g. Hong Gil-dong)

The second exception does not apply to given names with three or more syllables (e.g. Shin Saimdang, not Shin Sa-im-dang) and to polysyllabic family names (e.g. Namgung, not Nam-gung).

Probably other people should be aware of this, but I don't know who to notify. For now I'm notifying Sawol, who seems to be still active. 76.102.5.114 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

76.102.5.114 is right. English Wikipedia puts Korean given names into forms separated by one or more hyphen (e.g. Lee Bom-so-ri, Yeon Gae-so-mun, Kim Jong-un). South Korean government rules given names with a joined word (e.g. Lee Bomsori, Yeon Gaesomun, Kim Jongun). North Korean government's system used a space between every syllable (e.g. Lee Bom So Ri, Yon Kae So Mun, Kim Jong Un). South Korean government's old romanization system used one or more hyphen between syllables before 2000. English Wikipedia seems to be following the old romanization system of South Korea. Sawol (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawol: Actually, that's not what 76.102.5.114 is saying. They are saying (or proposing) that (when there is no personal preference and no established English spelling) hyphens should not be used in given names with three or more syllables, which means full names like 이봄소리 should be romanized as Lee Bomsori, not Lee Bom-so-ri.

I agree with what they said — i.e. no hyphens by default, only except in two-syllable given names. --216.16.109.115 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following this recent discussion on Talk:Kim Jong-un#Survey and discussion, should we remove hyphen from names (e.g. Kim Il Sung, per official sources) and leave it unhyphenated. This can change per consensus via Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Given name. Surveyor Mount 00:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --216.16.109.115 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the local consensus achieved at Kim Jong Un (formerly Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Il-sung), I'd like to propose a change in naming conventions for North Koreans to prefer the transliteration Kim Jong Un (one segment per syllable, each capitalized) over the transliteration Kim Jong-un. As was demonstrated during the request for move at Kim Jong Un, this spelling is broadly used by reliable secondary sources (being the one supported by the AP Stylebook) for North Korean names and is the one preferred by North Korea.

Given the local consensus achieved at Park Chung Hee (formerly Park Chung-hee), I'd like to propose a second change to the naming conventions to support the un-hyphenated romanization of Korean names for South Koreans who gained prominence prior to the 1980s/90s (the shift in naming conventions in favor of hyphens occurred at this time - this proposal would not restrict articles on South Koreans from continuing to use hyphens). The article Park Chung Hee has already been moved, but there are numerous other articles of historical South Koreans that are currently not found at their WP:COMMONNAME, including:

• Kim Jae-gyu (instead of Kim Jae Kyu [2])
• Chun Doo-hwan (instead of Chun Doo Hwan [3])
• Choi Kyu-hah (instead of Choi Kyu Hah [4])
• Shin Joong-hyun (instead of Shin Joong Hyun)
• Chough Pyung-ok (instead of Chough Pyong Ok [5])
• Lee Ki-poong (instead of Lee Ki Poong [6])

:3 F4U (they/it) 01:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on both proposals. toobigtokale (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those five ngrams links demonstrates WP:COMMONNAME for the unhyphenated version. (As for the first graph for Kim Jae-kyu, it's missing some combinations of hyphenation and spelling: [7].) For historical figures we look to the practice of modern secondary sources, which may or may not follow older spellings. (It's the same for historical place names.) Also, I think "gained prominence prior to the 1980s/90s" would be too nebulous of a standard and needs work. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oop good catch for Kim Jae Kyu! I'm not entirely certain on the standard either, which is why I brought it here. The reason why I brought it here is because I don't think the naming conventions should be a blanket support for one variant of spelling.

Generally, in my reading of Korean topics, English-language sources published from Korea support the newer hyphenated spellings, but with mixed usage for people with established names among English-language sources outside of Korea. In particular, academic sources, literature, and the American government tend to use the older, more-established spellings, while news organizations, particularly those from Korea, tend to prefer the newer spellings.

I think the better way to phrase what I'm proposing is: These people are prominent as historical figures, and unless there is an abundance of contemporary coverage on the figures, I think its better to recommend that the historical spellings be preferred. For historical figures where English-language coverage is difficult to find, it is much more likely that these people will be covered in the older transliteration (no hyphen and MR), meaning having a policy that blanket supports having these articles at their RR names actively hurts our readers' ability to find these articles.

Of course, WP:COMMONNAME trumps all, and that should obviously be stated in the policy, but I think its unhelpful for the policy to support blanket hyphenization, when that's oftentimes not the WP:COMMONNAME for historical South Koreans. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose changing the "family name" section from

Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise such as Kim, Lee, or Park, family names are romanized per Revised Romanization (RR) for South Koreans and pre-1945 Koreans, or McCune–Reischauer (MR) for North Koreans.

to the following:

Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise such as Gim, Yi, or Bak, family names are romanized per the transliteration found at Category:Korean-language surnames.

The romanizations of Kim, Lee, Park, Choi, Kang, Han, etc. are overwhelmingly more common than either a strict reliance on MR or RR. The transliteration Park, for example, is neither MR or RR, but is more common, by an astounding margin, than Bak or Pak. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on this too. toobigtokale (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general idea of using clearly established spellings even if they are non-systematic. I think the guideline should state the basic idea, a couple illustrative and non-exhaustive examples, and not much else. I'd propose something like this in substance: For many family names, such as Kim, Lee, and Park, there is a single clear common spelling, which is not necessarily the Revised Romanization or McCune–Reischauer romanization. In such cases, family names are romanized according to the common spelling, if the subject has no known personal preference.

I recommend against specifically citing Category:Korean-language surnames. First, without more, that just begs the question of how those pages' titles should be decided. Second, individual members of the category are not necessarily well vetted, and category members will change over time as articles may be added, removed, merged, or moved. It's best for the guideline not to endorse, or appear to endorse, everything in the category. Lastly, the category contains names which are not exclusively Korean, and also some variant spellings, and so those don't necessarily reflect the common name in the context of Korean romanization. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In my wording above, I'm leaving the door open for the possibility that a surname might have no clear common spelling at all. That would unlike any of the cases we've explicitly discussed, which have all been clear. It's probably not too frequent. I'd let this subsection of the guideline be silent on that, and leave it up to more general principles. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, I get what you mean. I think endorsing "Kim", "Lee", "Park", "Jung", "Choi", "Cho", "Kang", and "Yoon" as the commonly accepted spellings of Korean surnames would be good. At the very minimum, the naming conventions shouldn't be endorsing blanket RR surnames which are very much not the common spellings. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note something @Toobigtokale mentioned, which I agree with, which is that this also contradicts the recommendations in the MOS for Korean articles, which recommends MR romanization for topics pre-1945 (something I believe is much better reflected in common usage). :3 F4U (they/it) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the current section is very problematic and promotes rare RR variants of family names, over well-established transliterations, as per @Freedom4U. However, instead of using Category:Korean-language surnames as basis, I propose using the 성씨 로마자 표기 방안: 마련을 위한 토론회 [Plan for romanisation of surnames: a preparatory discussion] created by the National Institute of the Korean Language (also the creators of RR). Using the data provided in pages 57-62, we find that Kim (99.3%), Lee (98.5%), Park (95.9%), Kang (96.9%), Cho (73.1%), Moon (73.5%), Ko (67.5%), Woo (97.0%), etc are the more common transliterations compared to their RR and/or MR counterparts. For pre-1945 Koreans, I do think that either Revised Romanization or McCune–Reischauer romanization should be used. When reading from an academic paper or book, the historical figures are often known by their MR names, such as Yi Chagyŏm rather than Lee Ja-gyeom, or Yu Tŭkkong rather than Yoo Deuk-gong. Another thing that should be addressed is the attempt by some to translate the family name 김 as "Gim", supposedly based on the principles of Revised Romanization. However, most published works that do use Revised Romanization overwhelming translate 김 as "Kim" when used as a surname. For example, in A History of Korea (Third Edition) by Kyung Moon Hwang, it uses Kim Yu-sin and Kim Hong-do, rather than Gim Yu-sin and Gim Hong-do that Wikipedia currently uses. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanized Chinese titles get to keep ü (e.g. Lüchun County) and romanized Japanese titles get to keep macrons (e.g. Kōchi Prefecture). But why do McCune–Reischauer-romanized Korean titles have to drop breves and apostrophes (e.g. Munchon, not Munch'ŏn)? 125.4.19.70 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also bugged by this and a bit jealous of Japanese titles that have markings. Now that I give WP:TSC a closer read, maybe we should preserve markings for MR titles and turn the non-marked versions into redirects. The titles with diacritics are the proper titles; the names without diacritics don't make sense to anybody. toobigtokale (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that we allow McCune–Reischauer special characters (ŏ, ŭ, ') in titles for place names. Applying them in the title but not in the body is confusing, and doesn't even abide by WP:TSC: Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics... This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. The most appropriate title would be the North Korean standard, which is what is being followed in the body anyway.

I propose deleting (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies).

Note that to my understanding, the use of diacritics for non-place article titles isn't explicitly prohibited or encouraged. I think we ideally should write a section for article titles to make our practices clearer, but this is my scope for now. toobigtokale (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is actually from a technical restriction that existed in the very early years of Wikipedia. Now that such a restriction is gone, there does not seem to be a reason to prohibit breves and apostrophes in article titles.

From Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive 4#Diacritics in MR (note that this was in 2006):

Actually I would like to revisit that provision, which (IMO) has long outlived its usefulness. The "no diacritics or apostrophes" provision was originally put in place for technical reasons (as I recall, it was once impossible to have a well-formed article title containing an apostrophe). However, those days are long behind us, and the existing guideline only encourages (nay, enforces!) sloppiness. I would suggest that the diacritics/apostrophe exception, quoted above, be stricken from the naming conventions.

But there are some issues with using breves and apostrophes.

• Characters with a breve (ŏ ŭ Ŏ Ŭ): People often mis-input them as the ones with a caron (ǒ ǔ Ǒ Ǔ).
• Apostrophe: In various MR-romanized text, I have not only seen ' (U+0027, ASCII apostrophe) but also encountered ‘ (U+2018) and ’ (U+2019), and rarely ʻ (U+02BB) and ʼ (U+02BC), and more rarely even ʾ (U+02BE). I guess there are some MR converters outputting these non-ASCII characters, and someone using such a converter may inadvertently use them in article titles.
  • The original MR uses the ’ shape. Article titles in Wikipedia should simply use the ASCII apostrophe.

These issues can cause problems with finding existing articles or checking if an article already exists.

So maybe it is better not to use breves and apostrophes in article titles. I am not against your proposal though (I am neutral on this issue). 172.56.232.122 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although I'll add a bit of nuance. If you use the search bar, Wikipedia does automatic redirects for those swapped characters. However, linking won't work. For example, you can get to Kwŏnŏp Sinmun (with breves) by searching "Kwǒnǒp Sinmun" (with carons), but linking with carons yields a redlink.

To try and address this, like MOS:JAPAN#Article titles we can just tell them to create redirects for the alternative titles. But casual editors probably will never see that instruction.

Still, this swapped character issue exists in many other languages as well (including Japanese), yet they still manage to deal with it. I think we can too. toobigtokale (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, note that we already somewhat have this issue with MR and RR. I've yet to see any duplicate articles for MR and RR spellings or MR special character typos. I've only ever seen one for an English spelling variation: Movie theatres in South Korea and Movie theaters in South Korea (I merged them). toobigtokale (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more input, how about a WP:RFC? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But by the way, are breves and apostrophes really needed in article titles? Article titles are supposed to follow whatever is common in English, and if English text usually omits those symbols, then allowing them probably does not give much benefit.

Again, I am not against your proposal. I am just curious about it (also I would like to know the exact policy about article titles). 172.56.232.169 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this is a good discussion, thanks. For convenience, I'll resummarize my reasoning while addressing your point.

• We should overall abide by WP:TSC (particularly the part that I quote above)
• We should also abide by WP:COMMONNAME
  • You rightfully point out that in some cases, the common name will not have breves or apostrophes. However, there will be cases that they will have it, particularly in niche historical topics that are mainly covered by academia. Academic papers in most English-language journals about Korea use McCune-Reischauer, and hence breves.
  • Furthermore, if we follow common name we should be consistent about the name we use throughout the body, and not only use a certain name in the title and another in the body. This contradiction is what particularly bothers me; if we were consistent in prohibiting breves across the board (which I think would be unacceptable anyway) I think it'd be less of an issue.
• If other language style guides on Wikipedia allow special characters and do OK, I don't get why we would be an exception.

toobigtokale (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCKO and MOS:KO need style revisions imo. NCKO is confusingly organized (e.g. for NCKO, Romanization of names covers people/organization names, but not place names for some reason, which is covered by a separate section Place names. Are place names not names?).

It's hard to parse where to use McCune-Reischauer and where to use Revised Romanization. Perhaps someone should create a table of various scenarios, what system to use, and examples of correct usage.

If someone can step up to do this that'd be appreciated. While I (toobigtokale) still edit Wikipedia here and there, it's usually simple gnome stuff for a few minutes. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]