This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naming conventions (Korean) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
-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)
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. --
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)
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
via
Module:Infobox multi-lingual name in function ibox_mln_ko()
. Perhaps notification at that infobox template's
talk page is appropriate.Pinging @ Sawol, Rickinasia who are probably our best experts on Korean. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is also the #Romanization of names section above. Here is another suggestion with that section in consideration:
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)
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)
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)
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:
:3 F4U ( they /it) 01:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#McCune–Reischauer in titles. Currently, the Korean naming convention is to not use special characters for titles that use McCune–Reischauer romanization and to only use the special characters in the body. I am proposing that we allow the special characters. toobigtokale ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards.
However, quite often the breve and apostrophe are omitted when writing. The breve is not a standard key on a keyboard and many non-native Korean speakers do not feel the need to add apostrophes (National Academy of the Korean Language, 2001). Research by Jeong (1998) and Kim (2006) also conclude that many users don’t use diacritics. Omitting diacritics can cause an extreme amount of confusion. Take for example Shinch’ ŏn (신천) and Shinch’on (신촌). Not only are both of these places in Seoul, but at one time they were both on subway line 2 (the circle line). They are on opposite ends from each other. If you leave out the breves and apostrophes, they are both spelt Shinchon. If you looked up information for a restaurant and the information told you to go to Shinchon Station exit 4, you could have ended up going to the wrong subway station on the wrong side of Seoul. This caused a lot of confusion and inevitably Shinch’ ŏn (신천) station was renamed Jamsilsaenae.
"Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of.", that is largely inaccurate--or at least an incomplete picture. In fact, in both article titles and and content, place names tends to be controlled by COMMONNAME and weight factors beyond any other single factor, almost irrespective of language. Mind you, for the majority of topics (particularly the more historically relevant rather than more contemporaneously relevant subjects) there is going to be strong overlap between the modern official romanization schema and the commonname, but where they part I agree with you that the commonname should predominate as a matter of encyclopedic practicality, and that this is the approach that is already exercised broadly on the encyclopedia. SnowRise let's rap 04:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
Jeju
oreum aren't currently handled in NCKO. Propose modifying
WP:NCKO#Mountains to read Articles about specific mountains should be titled with the mountain's full unhyphenated Korean name including san, bong, or oreum should be used, as in Seoraksan or Geomunoreum.
Reasoning: I'm not sure there is a WP:COMMONNAME convention for how oreum are named; I'm seeing conflicted usage online. UNESCO has "geomunoreum" [8]. However, the visitkorea website has two different spellings: [9] [10].
I think just proposing one standard that matches how mountain articles are named is easier than hashing out each naming discussion for oreum in future. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 04:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Feel like a minor bit should be clarified under "Given name". It's not specified how we should treat voicing for the second particle after a hyphen in names. For example, I ran into this issue with "정상진". I used " Chŏng Sang-chin", but should it have been "Chŏng Sang-jin"?
Some additional reasonings (provided to me by the 172 IP user above), although note that these are not people names:
Also my reasoning: just because a hyphen is written, does not mean that consonants would be voiced differently in speech. We should reflect how people would speak the name.
Please let me know if thoughts or if I'm getting anything wrong. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and pre-1945 Korean names.
By the way, a more serious problem than this would be reflecting consonant assimilation before and after a hyphen.
The original MR explicitly states that this should not be done.
A simple example, the word Silla, will help to clarify the point. In Chinese, hsin 新 plus lo 羅 are pronounced Hsin-lo but in Korea, sin 新 plus na (la) 羅 are pronounced Silla. To hyphenate this name as Sil-la would imply that it is composed of two parts which individually are sil and la, which is obviously misleading.
As a side note, the surname 이 is actually I (not Yi) in MR.
Another very important example is 李, the surname of the kings of the last Korean dynasty and still a very common Korean surname. Actually it is pronounced in the standard dialect and should be Romanized I, but some may prefer to retain the older Romanization, Yi, because that is already the familiar form.
These are also found in the McCune–Reischauer article.
While I usually don't care about article titles (or any case where a spelling is supposed to follow a common form in English), I decided to post this because some people may find this helpful. 172.56.232.137 ( talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naming conventions (Korean) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
-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)
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. --
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)
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
via
Module:Infobox multi-lingual name in function ibox_mln_ko()
. Perhaps notification at that infobox template's
talk page is appropriate.Pinging @ Sawol, Rickinasia who are probably our best experts on Korean. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is also the #Romanization of names section above. Here is another suggestion with that section in consideration:
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)
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)
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)
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:
:3 F4U ( they /it) 01:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#McCune–Reischauer in titles. Currently, the Korean naming convention is to not use special characters for titles that use McCune–Reischauer romanization and to only use the special characters in the body. I am proposing that we allow the special characters. toobigtokale ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards.
However, quite often the breve and apostrophe are omitted when writing. The breve is not a standard key on a keyboard and many non-native Korean speakers do not feel the need to add apostrophes (National Academy of the Korean Language, 2001). Research by Jeong (1998) and Kim (2006) also conclude that many users don’t use diacritics. Omitting diacritics can cause an extreme amount of confusion. Take for example Shinch’ ŏn (신천) and Shinch’on (신촌). Not only are both of these places in Seoul, but at one time they were both on subway line 2 (the circle line). They are on opposite ends from each other. If you leave out the breves and apostrophes, they are both spelt Shinchon. If you looked up information for a restaurant and the information told you to go to Shinchon Station exit 4, you could have ended up going to the wrong subway station on the wrong side of Seoul. This caused a lot of confusion and inevitably Shinch’ ŏn (신천) station was renamed Jamsilsaenae.
"Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of.", that is largely inaccurate--or at least an incomplete picture. In fact, in both article titles and and content, place names tends to be controlled by COMMONNAME and weight factors beyond any other single factor, almost irrespective of language. Mind you, for the majority of topics (particularly the more historically relevant rather than more contemporaneously relevant subjects) there is going to be strong overlap between the modern official romanization schema and the commonname, but where they part I agree with you that the commonname should predominate as a matter of encyclopedic practicality, and that this is the approach that is already exercised broadly on the encyclopedia. SnowRise let's rap 04:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
Jeju
oreum aren't currently handled in NCKO. Propose modifying
WP:NCKO#Mountains to read Articles about specific mountains should be titled with the mountain's full unhyphenated Korean name including san, bong, or oreum should be used, as in Seoraksan or Geomunoreum.
Reasoning: I'm not sure there is a WP:COMMONNAME convention for how oreum are named; I'm seeing conflicted usage online. UNESCO has "geomunoreum" [8]. However, the visitkorea website has two different spellings: [9] [10].
I think just proposing one standard that matches how mountain articles are named is easier than hashing out each naming discussion for oreum in future. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 04:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Feel like a minor bit should be clarified under "Given name". It's not specified how we should treat voicing for the second particle after a hyphen in names. For example, I ran into this issue with "정상진". I used " Chŏng Sang-chin", but should it have been "Chŏng Sang-jin"?
Some additional reasonings (provided to me by the 172 IP user above), although note that these are not people names:
Also my reasoning: just because a hyphen is written, does not mean that consonants would be voiced differently in speech. We should reflect how people would speak the name.
Please let me know if thoughts or if I'm getting anything wrong. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and pre-1945 Korean names.
By the way, a more serious problem than this would be reflecting consonant assimilation before and after a hyphen.
The original MR explicitly states that this should not be done.
A simple example, the word Silla, will help to clarify the point. In Chinese, hsin 新 plus lo 羅 are pronounced Hsin-lo but in Korea, sin 新 plus na (la) 羅 are pronounced Silla. To hyphenate this name as Sil-la would imply that it is composed of two parts which individually are sil and la, which is obviously misleading.
As a side note, the surname 이 is actually I (not Yi) in MR.
Another very important example is 李, the surname of the kings of the last Korean dynasty and still a very common Korean surname. Actually it is pronounced in the standard dialect and should be Romanized I, but some may prefer to retain the older Romanization, Yi, because that is already the familiar form.
These are also found in the McCune–Reischauer article.
While I usually don't care about article titles (or any case where a spelling is supposed to follow a common form in English), I decided to post this because some people may find this helpful. 172.56.232.137 ( talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)