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
This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Something that's bugged me over time is that we previously didn't have a recommended MOS:DATEFORMAT per MOS:DATETIES. I just realized I think I can prove that SK/NK have one; to my understanding it's Month, Day, Year.
Below is a quick survey of various Korea-related English-language sources below, mostly from WP:KO/RS#R. Surprisingly all of the ones I looked at use MDY formatting.
I think there's a reasonably compelling case that we should recommend MDY. I'll add it to the MOS for now, if you dispute it please post here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I think the MDY proposal as currently formulated seems to be WP:OR. As you already highlighted, Korean dates typically written in the format YYYY-MM-DD. To recommend MDY as a standard for English-language sources related to Korea, we would need reliable secondary sources that explicitly instruct Koreans to use the MDY format when writing in English. Are there any? The list of websites using MDY could be considered primary sources or data points: to claim that Korean sources prefer MDY format when writing in English, one would ideally need secondary sources that analyze and discuss this preference explicitly, rather than inferring it from a collection of examples.
MDY is very much a US-only thing. When doing a very quick search on Naver I could see recommendations on writing MDY for English when the audience was American, and DMY for European audiences. Though I didn't spend long looking, I don't think we're in a position to make the recommendation for MDY. By contrast, YYYY-MM-DD is an acceptable format in the wider MOS for references, so could recommend that I think.
Great that we've included a section on lunar calendar too. I've been struggling to find a site that will convert old (pre-1900) dates to Gregorian calendar or explains how to do it. Is anyone aware of one?Nonabelian (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MDY works because it is the observed status quo in the majority of South Korean-related articles. DMY usage is minimal and mostly observed in BLP articles, often due to the subject originating from UK-related countries or because the article was already written in British English, both of which fall under strong ties. Another observation for DMY usage is when the article was already using that format, so it was retained. While YYYY-MM-DD is an acceptable format for citations only, when an article is using either MDY or DMY, it is also tagged with {{Use mdy dates}} or {{Use dmy dates}}. These templates automatically render dates [in citations] in the specified format, regardless of the format they are entered in the wikitext. For consistency and maintainability, we should stick to a single style, which, as mentioned at the beginning, should be MDY, as per the nomination. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)06:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For these kinds of policies there will always be degrees of OR in proposals in creating and evaluating them. But I think the argument that the evidence is not strong enough is reasonable. However, I suspect there's a reason MDY is being used so consistently in English-language sources from both Koreas. After 30 mins of searching I can't find any guidance on it (not even sure which govt ministry would produce this guidance, if any). seefooddiet (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up, I'm going to retract the strong recommendation to use MDY dates by default, and replace it with a softer recommendation based on common practice. seefooddiet (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there's inconsistency on South Korean-related article, To point out, most South Korean politician used the DMY format while other category of South Korean article used the MDY format. Usage of MDY is pretty much a US-only thing 81.78.168.51 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify whether you're talking about a specific article or a category of articles? The DMY format is used for the lead sections and infoboxes of WP:BLP articles. The discussion has recently met a consensus that MDY should be used for the body and refs of South Korea-related articles. 00101984hjw (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be reactive instead of proactive here, but I fail to really see how the specific wording here is consistent with WP:DATETIES, with the operative passage even being cited here. There's no reason to prefer MDY nor to switch articles to it, as no English-speaking date preference is at issue. Remsense ‥ 论06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, on a regrettably late closer read you may be right.
However, two other thoughts:
I don't think there's anything in Wikipedia's guidelines that prohibits our expressed preference for MDY.
If it is the widespread practice of both countries to use MDY when writing English, there may be a separate argument for using MDY.
There's a recent discussion you may want to check out in the MOS:DATE talk archives. This is me serving as the messenger in large part; I just wanted to make sure everyone was fully aware of the previous deliberations of this particular passage—I certainly wasn't! Remsense ‥ 论07:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. The only entities I know of in South Korea that may use non-American English are international schools that follow British curricula. Everything else I've interacted with in South Korea has used American English. @98Tigerius @00101984hjw do you have any thoughts on this? Otherwise the only opposing voice so far is Nonabelian, and they've largely stopped contributing to Wikipedia in the last month. May be able to get this passed. seefooddiet (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s safe to say MDY is the better option here. It appears to me as well that Korean sources prefer the format in English articles, and Korea definitely has had a stronger American influence throughout its history. — 00101984hjw (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hm wait. Forgot about North Korea. I don't know how prevalent non-American English is there, but at the very least we may be able to get a MDY recommendation passed for both Koreas given evidence in my original post. We'd have to demonstrate prevalence of non-American English in NK before we'd be able to recommend English variety guidance for NK-related articles. seefooddiet (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search and found Ask a North Korean: What is English-language education like in the DPRK?, which reads, "If North Korea hates the U.S. so much, why would its citizens study English? It’s true that North Korea describes the U.S. as a mortal enemy, as invaders and wild dogs with whom it cannot live under one sky. Perhaps that’s why people in North Korea are taught British English, not American English." Unseen part of North Korea [VIDEO] also states, "Except the English we learn is British English, not American English." ✗plicit00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah makes sense. The use of MDY on their sites is odd. Does anyone have a VPN or live outside the US? Can you tell us if the date format changes to DMY? seefooddiet (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got hold of a VPN and gave it a try. It seems like they genuinely seem to prefer MDY. Also [16] This link uses "humor" instead of the British "humour".
I think we should ask for MDY for both Koreas. I think we can recommend American English for South Korea-related articles, but abstain from commenting on North Korea–related ones for now (until more evidence is gathered). Does this sound good? @00101984hjw @Explicitseefooddiet (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. For now, articles about South Korean subjects should use MDY format, while articles about North Korean subjects should remain status quo. ✗plicit08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made some section deletions (sorry 😥) due to concerns over the MOS's length. Even after the deletions, it's longer than the Chinese and Japanese manuals. Granted, our romanization is more complicated than theirs, but still think we should continuously push for concision. Please feel free to undo or edit anything I write as well; I don't take it personally. Just want to make this draft as robust as possible; such total rewrites are a rare opportunity. seefooddiet (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just trimmed much of the family name hatnote/footnote section; sorry again... It strongly overlaps with the Template:Family name explanation, so I just decided to just link to the template in lieu of repeating the explanation. The examples also add length to the article; people can click on the template doc pages to see examples. seefooddiet (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to explicitly state that people should not get hanja from Chinese-language sources
In Wikipedia, these are sometimes found in hanja names of people:
Chinese-language transcription (whose Korean reading does not match the hangul name)
Simplified Chinese characters
Chinese-language sources are unreliable for Korean hanja names because they "make up" one when the actual hanja is not known.
Another issue is that some people think the hanja parameter of a Korean-related template must consist of hanja only, even though some names do not have hanja. Such people get hanja from Chinese-language sources and blindly replace the hangul in the hanja parameter.
This page should state at least the following:
Do not get hanja from Chinese-language sources.
Chinese-language sources are unreliable for Korean hanja names because they "make up" one when the actual hanja is not known.
Some names do not have hanja (hanja is not a requirement in names). In such cases, only the surname is written in hanja (e.g. hangul: 김빛나, hanja: 金빛나). Do not blindly replace the hangul in the hanja parameter of a Korean-related template.
The rule sounds good to me. Side note, but I'm a little worried about the word "blindly"; it typically reads a little harsh in English. If you'd like, you can just write comfortably without worrying about tone, and I can go and edit the addition later.
Thank you for bringing this issue to light. I went ahead and added it to a new subsection called "Sourcing Hanja"; this should probably be resectioned at some point. I slightly reworded your second provision, and I think that the first provision could also be edited (particularly the "make up"), but I don't know how to approach it. Dantus21 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may rewrite the guidance for Hanja altogether today; the main ideas will be preserved but I will change the ordering and placement of the information seefooddiet (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've recently made some significant changes so want to slow down and give a high-level summary of them.
Rewrote lead
Shortened prose for explanations/policies that exist on other pages. I tried to display prominent links to those pages instead.
Completely rewrote the Hanja section.
Mostly kept existing logic, made some additions
Mostly rewrote Article layout section.
Added significant amount of guidelines; I don't suspect they are/hope they aren't controversial. They're already common practice for our articles.
Created a Naming guidelines section
Rules that apply to all Naming conventions, unless overridden in the Naming conventions section.
Check out the Avoid redundant English names section. I'm not sure we should keep this; it's more just a pet peeve.
Overhauled Naming conventions other than the people name section
People name section is pending discussion.
Logic should mostly be the same, except for province names. I'll make a separate post about that.
Moved formatting titles of works into this section from Romanization section.
Rewrote Wiktionary links section with help of the original author (172 IP user)
I recommend you reread the sections I described above to understand what has changed. I tried to make everything uncontroversial. If you see anything you disagree with, please let me know ASAP so we can address it or potentially revert to an earlier version. I'm trying hard to balance not stepping on any toes while still writing quickly.
TODO:
Templates section
Misc copyediting
Discuss Romanization conventions and people naming conventions
Copyedit or revise both those sections depending on discussion
@Seefooddiet Is there a particular aspect you feel is missing and would like to see improved? I couldn't think of any at the moment, but I can add more if there is a direction provided. Otherwise, I have no objection to the current state of the Article Layout section. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)09:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, the goal was actually to be minimally intrusive and reflect current practice, so hearing that you think it's acceptable is a relief! seefooddiet (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having did a readthrough of most of it, here's what I have to say.
English word section looks good, but maybe make a more explicit guideline for what words should be italicized (or not) as I feel this could be a slippery slope for interpretation. For example, you could specify dictionaries to check (like Cambridge or Oxford) and specifying a ratio of dictionaries with the word (like 3:2) that could indicate to not italicize. Perhaps I'm overcomplicating stuff
What does "topics related to korea as a whole" mean for RR? Does it mean for names like Joseon? Why single out personal names for MR?
I was not the primary author of this section, and haven't touched it much. Pending discussion as I'm also uncertain about parts of it. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the romanization template, does that mean that an article will have a consistent romanization throughout (I think I might not understand the extent of it)?
I’m still unsure what to do here (I might make a post about romanizations soon), but whatever it is Seoul should be the exception, because according to this ngrams Soul was/is almost never used, even in cases before RR existed. Dantus21 (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is quite complicated; I'm currently researching the situation and discussing it actively with the IP user. I'm currently working on Romanization of Korean to share what I've learned with others.
I'm considering publishing an WP:ESSAY on the situation for future readers. Still doing the background research though.
We're joining into a debate that has lasted over a century, and how we rule on may have a significant impact on how others spell Korean terms. Complicated situation, but fun given the real impact we may have seefooddiet (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By any chance where are you discussing this with the IP (if you want to share)? I’d be interested in helping out too, although my Korean is admittedly not too great. Dantus21 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Via email; we're discussing in a mix of Korean and English. Most things of substance we discuss on Wiki directly for public viewing; it's usually questions about Wiki policy that we discuss privately. This talk page and links to other discussions match our current understanding of romanization. seefooddiet (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting disclosure here. I'm concerned on the statement it's usually questions about Wiki policy that we discuss privately. For transparency and accountability, could you please elaborate on the types of policy discussions that occur privately? Are these primarily clarifications, or do they involve substantive (regardless of depthness) discussion about changes to Wikipedia's policy? Do they align with the Wikipedia's policy on consensus pertaining to off-wiki discussions? —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. It's usually questions about how policies work. They're usually shallow questions; when there's anything of substance we go to wiki. I would hope there's no reason to be suspicious; you know me and intentions here are clearly good seefooddiet (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little saddened by your comment. What even would either of us have to gain by conspiring here? Neither of us benefit from these policy changes and I've welcomed disagreement, and I've disagreed with the IP user both publicly and privately. I disclose my process as much as needed out of good faith. There's no "gotcha aha" moment here to be found. I'm remarkably boring; I'm reading 90 year old papers about linguistics. seefooddiet (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just caught off-guard by such disclosure hence raising some alarms. Don't worry, this is all good-faith. Thanks for the clarification. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hangul section looks good
Already commented on Hanja section
Article layout section looks good
Template section looks good; maybe say something about not putting in context=old? Hunminjeongeum is barely used anyway and imo that name will cause more confusion; perhaps it might just be a pet peeve of mine
Naming guidelines look good; We should definitely keep the avoid redundant English names; most of the names are so uncommon that we should avoid tautologies when we can.
I'm still a little on the fence about it; I visited Gyeongbukgung a few weeks ago and they put "Gyeongbukgung Palace" all over the place. "Namsan Mountain" is also reasonably common. However, maybe this just falls under common name and are exceptions rather than a trend. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible to break up naming conventions section or maybe even make a separate page?
I'm thinking the same thing; we originally intentionally tried to merge WP:NCKO into MOS:KO, but it's becoming so long that maybe unmerging is best. For now will keep on the same article, likely will split off later. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do common modified romanizations apply to ancient people and North Koreans?
Fair enough. FWIW I would support modified for South Koreans, but not for ancient people or North Koreans since I don’t think they generally use those modified spellings. Dantus21 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t looked at administrative divisions yet, will look at soon.
Geographic features, temples, and works in naming conventions section look good.
I am ambivalent to the dates, wiktionary, and references section, but they generally look good.
I'll admit I didn't look at your specifications before rereading, so forgive me if I accidentally addressed something that you already planned to! Dantus21 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
찔레골 NKR: JJilre-gol or Jilre-gol vs MR: Tchille-gol. Notice the second capital "J" and optional removal of second "J".
김꽃분이 NKR: Kim KKotpuni vs MR: Kim Kkotpuni. Notice the second capital "K".
Currently, we blanket recommend MR for all NK-related topics. Yet, as discussed in #Names hyphenation, we're considering borrowing elements of the official North Korean style for people names, and applying them to MR, when really those style elements are a part of NKR. I don't think this works.
I think these are our options:
Use NKR for all NK-related concepts.
Use pure MR for all NK-related concepts (i.e. for names, no spaces or hyphens between syllables by default).
Use MR for all NK-related concepts, borrow elements of NKR style rules (as proposed in #Names hyphenation) and apply them to MR.
Use NKR for people names only, use MR for everything else.
I think we should do either 1 or 2; think 3 and 4 are too confusing and arbitrary.
I'm leaning towards 2. 2 is closest to the current status quo, and is closest to international academic writings on Korea. It also is asking less of our users; we're already asking them to learn MR and RR, adding NKR is a lot.
But also arguments for 1: news articles on KCNA Watch use NKR (example). [Edit: also, I emailed NK News and confirmed that their style guide asks for NKR.] It also may seem like a political move to not use NK's preferred system (although SK's systems have long been ignored by the academic community and seemingly nobody's been bothered by our use of MR for NK thus far). seefooddiet (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One key detail in the AP Stylebook I just noticed is this: The style and spelling of names in North Korea and South Korea follow each government’s standard policy for transliterations unless the subject has a personal preference. Technically, the AP is asking its staff to use NKR for people's names. I'm not sure how closely they follow that guidance. For place names, it seems like NKR isn't being consistently applied: e.g. NKR and MR ("phyongan" and "pyongan"; 13 results for "Phyongan" vs 19 for "Pyongan"). You can observe similar for NKNews: 170 results for "Pyongan", 208 for "Phyongan".
Sorry for my late response! I’m no expert, but I’d say Option 2 by a long shot, as it seems to be what the majority of reliable sources seem to use. I wouldn’t worry about it being a political statement, since we’re just following what the sources do. If someone has a different take I’d be interested in hearing it though. — Dantus21 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update I'm increasingly conflicted and need to do more research. I'm going to try and verify what other mainstream international newspapers use. So far I've verified that NK News and Associated Press both recommend NKR (with the latter recommending it for names). seefooddiet (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure you already were thinking this, but also keep in mind what the newspapers actually practice too, as it seems like AP and NK didn’t strictly follow their own recommendations. Dantus21 (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some more thinking. Our rules are already incredibly complicated, and we're already asking for knowledge of at least 2 romanization systems. I suspect NKR actually does see a good amount of usage, but I'm loathe to overload our rules even more. Complication drives people away, and we need more editors. seefooddiet (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present, our draft MOS discourages the use of Yale romanization of Korean, but I've become skeptical of this.
See Middle Korean; the Yale system is being used for this article. @Kanguole, have you seen if any writings on Middle Korean use MR instead of Yale? My impression is it's probably mostly Yale; if so we should reflect what the linguists are doing and not force MR into the situation.
It's standard practice in English-language works on Korean linguistics to use Yale for linguistic examples, e.g. Cho and Whitman Korean: A Linguistic Introduction, Lee and Ramsey A History of the Korean Language, Brown and Yeon (eds.) The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, Song The Korean Language, Sohn The Korean Language, Chang Korean. Kanguole11:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pending additional participation, I think it'll be relatively safe to assume Yale is going to be acceptable. I may modify the MOS to reflect this. seefooddiet (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about "Use only when used by source being cited". If a linguistics article cites English-language sources and Korean-language sources, the former will presumably use Yale for their examples and the latter no romanization. But we would want to be consistent within the article. Yale is designed to correspond directly to the Hangul spelling, so generating it requires less expertise than MR or RR. Kanguole20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about it either. Part of my worry is what do we do with non-linguistics text on linguistics articles? Like Hangul author names, for example. Do we write author names in Yale? seefooddiet (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the texts I listed above, the usual practice is Yale for the examples and MR for all the names. (Sohn is an exception, using Yale for everything, so Sinla, Seycong and Ceycwu.) Kanguole21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's acceptable to use Yale romanization in linguistics articles, but I'm hesitant to make the rule a strict "use only Yale for linguistics articles". Not many people besides Korean linguists would be familiar with Yale, and we should keep in mind WP:TECHNICAL—unlike Korean linguistics tomes, the main readership of Korean linguistics articles on Wikipedia is probably not Korean linguists. Choosing the more esoteric romanization option, especially when there is not much obvious benefit, doesn't seem to follow that guideline. (I don't think converting articles like Korean pronouns and Korean postpositions to Yale is particularly helpful—do you really want to tell people that "I" in Korean is "ce"?) Wiktionary also uses RR. That said, Yale romanization can sometimes be useful for e.g. morphology or historical linguistics, so it should still be used when appropriate.
It looks like the de facto standard for some Korean linguistics articles is a "why not both?" approach: see Korean grammar or Korean verbs, where Yale is bolded and RR is in italics; maybe that option is preferable for some articles? Otherwise, deciding on a per-article basis could be the simpler option. Using Yale in Middle Korean is fine, for example. Malerisch (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My wording of the Yale guidance was unclear; what I meant to imply was that using Yale was acceptable for linguistics articles (particularly for linguistics examples), not that it should be the only system in use for such cases. I gave rewording it a shot, but still feeling meh about my wording.
@Kanguole makes a somewhat opposing point btw; they argued in favor of intra-article consistency.
I'm not sure what we should recommend. Maybe worth noting that the articles @Malerisch linked are all fairly poorly sourced; maybe we shouldn't be attached to the de facto current standards for such articles. But I do agree that Yale is inaccessible to most and that Wikipedia should be accessible. But I also agree that consistency is also nice. Difficult decision. Maybe should leave up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, similar to WP:ENGVAR? But that also sounds bleh; three different potential romanization systems in use for a single topic, with no standards for what to use except for whatever individual editors prefer at the time??? At least for our other romanization guidelines it's reasonably clear what system to use; more difficult to figure out here. seefooddiet (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought; we don't really have the opportunity to apply a MOS:CONSISTENT-like guideline (prescribing intra-article consistency) with romanization because we romanize on a term-by-term basis.
Maybe I lean towards Malerisch's argument then, but I'm still skeptical of just letting people decide which romanization system to use (potentially all three in the same article) based on mostly personal taste. seefooddiet (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think RR is not suitable for modern linguistics. Consider the following example:
The word dongnip 'independence' is composed of dok 'alone' and rip 'to stand'.
Ordinary readers would have difficulty understanding this.
To get around this, you could use the RR letter-by-letter transliteration (doglib, dog, lib), but this system is functionally yet another separate romanization system. We shouldn't complicate things even more by introducing a fourth romanization system. I'd argue that for linguistics, we should only use Yale. 172.56.232.137 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with this. Yale romanization also has the flaw of leading readers to believe that 독립 is pronounced "toklip", as readers unfamiliar with Yale would naturally expect it to represent pronunciation rather than just the underlying morphology. Assuming that this is actually a linguistics example, adding a short explanation about Korean pronunciation changes would suffice to dispel any confusion.
Would you also argue that Hepburn romanization would similarly be unsuitable for Japanese, which has sound changes like rendaku?
The word tegami 'letter' is composed of te 'hand' and kami 'paper'.
I think the key word in the IP user's comment for RR letter-by-letter is functionally.
Note that in the current draft MOS we currently discourage its use at all (ctrl+f "letter-by-letter"). That is open to discussion btw; I agree with excluding it because it's so rarely used and because of the functionally argument. seefooddiet (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the pronunciation-based RR has the flaw of leading readers to believe that 물고기 (mulgogi) is pronounced [물고기] (instead of [물꼬기]), as tensification is not reflected. The MR system indicates tensification by using the voiceless letter instead of the voiced letter (mulkogi; cf. 불고기 [불고기] pulgogi). So if you think showing pronunciation is important, we should probably use MR.
I think I can criticize more on RR, but I won't do that (at least for now).
For everthing else, I think you're right. I don't think I have a good counterargument to that.
(However, I personally don't think an orthography (including a romanization system) has to show pronunciation perfectly (in other words, personally I am okay with "toklip"), but I won't go into that.) 172.56.232.61 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While RR, MR, and Yale all have flaws, I think the use of RR is probably best for discussions of the contemporary Korean language mostly because it's the most recognizable system to the users of Wikipedia. Also, I imagine most people engage with the learning of Korean through books that use RR.
I think it's unlikely there'll be significant changes to these linguistics articles quickly, so you have some time to develop an argument. seefooddiet (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can/should have both infoboxes. Infobox legislation would go first, then infobox Korean name. It doesn't appear that Infobox legislation has a parameter for embedding a child template, so they'll likely need to be kept separate; otherwise we generally recommend the two infoboxes are combined, as is done here Maebongsan (Yeongwol). seefooddiet (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the logic is the same, optimized for concision.
Added Yale romanization to what we use.
Changed examples for romanizations; I'm still not happy with them though. The previous examples referred to province names that are governed by our naming conventions and used English words mixed in, so wasn't 100% clear. They also didn't illustrate the use of diacritics. Please feel free to swap them out again, I'll be thinking of better examples.
Added rules about the use of MR/RR.
Added a section to Naming guidelines on strict romanization vs naming conventions; this affects the romanization guidelines.
I will make more additions to this in near future. As a heads up, I'm currently writing a companion essay for romanizing Korean on Wikipedia. It provides more detailed explanations of our various choices. When I complete the first draft of the essay, I'll move it under the WikiProject Korea namespace, so that it belongs to the community and can continue to be updated. seefooddiet (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add in observed WP:STATUSQUO also otherwise once this draft goes live, there may be unexpected misinterpretation causing issues, including but not limited to, article's content, moving of articles, etc. I'm not particular on anything unless concerning on South Korea BLP-related topics. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, sorry. Btw I saw that you thanked me for an edit; I've since changed that text that you thanked me for. You may want to check the page again, RR no longer mentions WP:COMMONNAME.
Are you requesting we mention what used to be done? There's so many changes in this MOS that I think mentioning the previous standards may be cumbersome. Furthermore, the MOS is about reflecting current consensus, not necessarily what used to be done. seefooddiet (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet Oh ... didn't saw that changes. Saw that it's now pointing to "Strict romanization vs naming conventions" which included my intention above hence I don't think we need to mention as per observed status quo (within English Wikipedia) and/or current consensus. However, I still need thinks that mentioning WP:COMMONNAME may be beneficial ... then again, WP:RM often lumps together a bunch of policies hence mentioning COMMONNAME may be redundant. In case, I'm being confusing, my only concerns is including but not limited to, article titling, name in opening sentence, Infoboxes (including but not limited to |name=, |birth_name=, |other_names=. Excluding {{Infobox Korean name}}), name in list/list of. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)09:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The romanization section is about romanization, not about English-language spellings. The two topics are separate; WP:COMMONNAME is more about English-language spellings.
To clarify, this is what the updated guidance is for South Korean people:
Unless a WP:COMMONNAME or personal preference name is known, use RR (with hyphen in given name) for the article title, article body (including in the opening sentence), and infobox header (both in the header for {{infobox person}} and any of its variants, and the header for {{Infobox Korean name}}). For parameters like birth_name=, you should use this spelling too.
This is the English-language spelling I'm talking about.
However, any time a template asks you for RR (namely {{Korean}} or {{Infobox Korean name}}), do not include the hyphen in the personal name. Only strictly apply RR, which normally discourages such hyphens.
@Nonabelian I just realized that by the current MOS, the romanization method notice may be counterproductive.
We currently determine which romanization system is used on a term-by-term basis, and not by entire articles. See also the "Same terms for article titles and in the body" section. For example, if we're writing about a Joseon-era cookbook (its title should use MR) and tteokbokki comes up, we should use the modern RR spelling for tteokbokki.
I propose we don't use the templates. We could possibly reword them to align with the MOS, but the explanation would be complicated enough (especially given that the naming conventions section modifies pure romanization) that it may be better to just point to the MOS itself. seefooddiet (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks and Nonabelian hasn't been active for a while. I'm going to remove the template from the MOS. If you come back Nonabelian and would like to discuss this, please lmk. seefooddiet (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Nonabelian, I'm sorry, I may remove the romanization help section altogether. My reasoning is this:
We're planning on adding an automatic romanization module in near future, which would make this obsolete.
The instructions are pretty lengthy, precise, and involve what is functionally coding. I have a gut feeling that few will ever follow these instructions; they're in a sea of a very long MOS. Furthermore, the people this section is meant for are possibly lazy; RR and Hangul are both fairly easy to learn (even if mistakes are made).
Now that the people naming section is rewritten, we're almost done with the first draft of the MOS. I think the last major thing left is the references section.
I want to give the section a rewrite. It's pretty lengthy and complicated; I doubt many will want to read or follow it at present. If this isn't executed well, even fewer people would be willing to write WP:GAs and WP:FAs because they'd need to digest these rules. seefooddiet (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it bother anyone if we just deleted the current references section from the MOS altogether? I should have thought of this earlier before I sent out that RFC to write it... My mistake.
I think there's no real obligation on Wikipedia to romanize titles or author names; the Chicago Manual of Style asks for it but we don't have to follow that. Also, this level of precision in reference formatting is a lot of work for little gain; it only hurts people who are trying to get GA or FA by making them do all this. seefooddiet (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have complicated feelings about this.
While I believe articles adhering to the current ref section would be helpful for the general English speaking reader or article reviewers, it's definitely tedious to provide translated titles and names for every reference, especially considering that the use of the |mask1= parameter itself is pretty unorthodox. And to be fair, most Korean refs on the Enwiki don't even cite |newspaper= or |website= so I think it may be a little too early for such a scrupulous guideline.
However, my main concern is how few editors we have. Really the purpose of all our rules is to make editing easy by providing structure. Currently they're precise because they're meant to solve tedious debates that were boring and often reached divergent standards, which caused confusion. However, if the rules become tedious in themselves without significantly solving tedious confusions then I think they become harmful. Also, our main priority should be to maximize the amount of information in the bodies of articles. Ref format is a secondary priority imo. seefooddiet (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my draft rewrite: User:Seefooddiet/MOS. My rationale for stripping it down so much:
The general Wikipedia MOS is really sparse on how to handle the formatting of references. I suspect this is intentional.
Our present guidelines, even if all reworded to be optional, would be possibly the most restrictive and precise on the website by a wide margin.
If you think about it, all we need from a citation is being able to tell what is being referenced. Anything more is just bonus. That includes rendering Hangul names into Latin script; that may be helpful in discussions but doesn't necessarily strongly help people figure out what source is being referenced. They'll need the original Hangul for that.
I kept trans-title because there's already a clear parameter for that and clear consensus that using it is good practice. On the other hand, romanizing author names I haven't seen a consensus for.
I don't really agree with a number of the choices in hindsight. E.g. providing both romanizations and translations. I'm not sure romanizations for titles should be put at all; they're not helpful to almost everybody, tedious to produce, and are a relic of academic practices (which we don't have to follow).
My perspective on the purpose of an MOS has also changed a lot over the course of writing this draft; I'm trying to simplify it.
I'm too uncertain on what we should recommend for too many areas. Until we reach clear consensuses on things (unlike in the RfC done to produce this, which drew only a handful of people), I figure it's better to keep our guidance sparse, like the general MOS.
I fully support the decision of keeping trans-title but deleting transliteration (although standardized referencing styles may prefer otherwise). I don’t see any reason why any reviewer would wish to know the pronunciation of a title rather than its translation.
Also, should usage of the author-mask1= parameter be mandatory? I haven’t seen a single non-Korean, non-sfn source reference that uses this parameter and I think this may be the biggest annoyance to many new editors. I guess it has inevitable roles for sources with the authors’ names in Hangul or Hanja, but would it really be necessary when the name is romanized in the source itself? We already know what transliteration the author prefers and I don’t think removing a single comma would make a big difference.
Per the wording in my draft, author-mask is regulated like this: rendering author names in English is optional -> if you do render author names in English, use author-mask. Thus, author-mask is optional.
However, I'm now second-guessing myself. I'm not sure how best to handle the format of the author masking and where to put Hangul or English. Check the draft again; I just modified it by deleting that regulation altogether. As per above, until we're certain I think it's better to just withhold guidance. seefooddiet (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I WP:BOLDly went ahead and replaced the section. If anyone opposes this, please let me know.
I think the new MOS is ready for use. I'll probably continue editing it for clarity, but the major decisions I think have been made.
Next steps:
I'll post a notice to WP:KO about this new MOS and will split this draft back into MOS:KO and WP:NCKO.
I suspect many pages will be moved because of this new MOS. If you think a move will be uncontroversial, you can feel free to WP:BOLDly move it yourself; if there is any uncertainty I think you should open a move discussion instead.
Any time a page gets moved, mentions of that page in other articles should be updated as well. For each successful move you make, I recommend you post a request on User:Seefooddiet/AWB requests. I'll then use WP:AWB to automatically update the spellings; this should reduce tedious work and the volume of edits that we have to make to update all these spellings.
Thanks for working on this, everyone! We've had the previous MOS, flaws and all, since 2004. I think this is the first time it received a complete overhaul; hopefully it should resolve confusions that we've had for decades. seefooddiet (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the whole proposal once more, and I think we're set! The MoS can always be revised with consensus and the current draft seems to address all the major issues. I'm honestly surprised this thing hasn't gone through any major revamps for 20 years. It's somewhat disappointing, in a way. But anyways, excellent work! Cheers. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opening an WP:RfC mostly to poll opinions from outside WikiProject Korea. If you're a regular at WPK, you've probably already voiced your opinion on this issue (e.g. here); unless you have something new to add, I encourage you to make this thread mostly for non-regulars.
For Korean topics significant before the 1945 division of Korea, we currently recommend the use of the McCune–Reischauer (MR) romanization system. While the use of this system is widespread amongst academics, it may be less popular amongst general audiences around the world. This is even true withiin South Korea, where Revised Romanization (RR) is the standard. North Korea doesn't even really use MR; they use a modified version. So it's basically only academics that use the system now.
Furthermore, RR is becoming increasingly popular in general, due to South Korea's pop culture. South Korean historical dramas are probably the largest source of article views for pre-1945 Korean history articles. Viewers of these dramas will like South Korean pop culture, thus probably only be familiar with RR.
At present, because of WP:COMMONNAME, numerous pre-1945 topics use RR anyway (see this recent failed move). As a result, we have a mix of MR and RR terms for pre-1945 topics; in the same article you can basically end up with half RR and half MR terminology (example, the title of this article; the person's name is per MR, the disambig per RR).
Sorry, I toned down the wording. This affects both Naming conventions (Korean) and this MOS; maybe it should have been at NCKO but I think no significant difference. NCKO bases its romanization policy on MOS:KO. seefooddiet (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That we separate (some but not all of) the language pages from naming pages (or have regional generalizations scattered here and there), with no central organization, is another problem. One place is as good as any as long as everyone is notified. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article naming policy is very different from questions of style within articles. Conflating them leads to confusion like the "consistency within an article" remark below. Kanguole12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should reformat your RfC to look more like the examples at WP:RfC -- put a clear neutrally-worded question(s) in bullets. Afterward that, you can expand on background, link to relevant discussions, etc. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Comment.This is a tough call. I appreciate the complexity and importance of this work. I have some general thoughts.
I have some familiarity with the issues regarding the two romanization systems but I'm not an expert in them or any Korea-related topics. My read of the situation is that it may not be workable to try to enforce a strong policy across all Korea-related articles on English Wikipedia. It seems reasonable to state a preference or default romanization system in borderline cases and provide some common guidelines, exceptions, and considerations, with examples. WP:COMMONNAME and other general naming guidance along with consensus on particular articles will often prevail in the ultimate decision. The Chinese naming conventions may be a good model. They default to pinyin but concisely describe important exceptions. Infoboxes provide flexibility to display multiple readings without interrupting the flow of the main article when that additional information has particular relevance. The chemistry folks also have a nice approach. There are clear, official standards which they typically adhere to but they provide for numerous exceptions following prevailing use by chemists and non-chemists where appropriate.
Regarding sources, academic sources that are clearly good sources of information on the topic may not be the best reflection of common usage. I would be inclined to give more weight to predominant usage in widely circulated publications for a general audience in determine which name to use for an article.
While it may not be possible to achieve uniformity across all English Wikipedia articles, consistency within an article should be a priority. Even here, there may be exceptions, but in general an article should not switch back and forth between the two systems. Editors wanting to update an existing article should generally adhere to the usage currently in place in said article. However, there may be cases where it's appropriate to use use certain common names in different systems within the same article. MYCETEAE 🍄🟫— talk06:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For general reader utility, I would suggest we standardize on the most-used modern system, RR, but for topics pertaining to the applicable time range also provide MR, both in the lead and as a redirect, as needed, unless by chance some particular subject has no MR representation in the source material (e.g. a recent discovery from an earlier era, and only written about so far in RR sources). This is markedly similar to issues with Chinese rendering. For cases where a subject is overwhelmingly known by the MR version, then use that as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME. This would also be consistent with our treatment of Chinese. This is distinct from issues like Scottish Gaelic having an early-20th-century diacritic reform; the different versions are barely distinct, and the old style is not used in any modern source material, so need only exist as redirects and not be explicitly mentioned in the articles. Here, though, there is continued use of the older MR style, just as with Chinese names Laozi continues to appear in some souce material as Lao Tzu, and so on, and for some cases the older WJ transliteration style still dominates in English, though a faction of WP editors has moved them to "modernized" pinyin or pinyin-based spellings anyway (probably against policy), but even these often are not in full pinyin with the diacritics, those versions just existing as redirects (when people bother making them). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese situation is quite different. English-language academic publications on China switched to pinyin in the 1980s, and its use is now near universal for all periods. The same has not happened with English-language academic publications on Korea, especially historical topics, where MR remains the norm. Kanguole12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant for this discussion to poll opinions from non-experts. I'm going to develop a more formal argument and propose it in near future. seefooddiet (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware this discussion lapsed. I intend to propose the change in near future, maybe in next few weeks. Part of the issue is that it requires a significant amount of research to figure out what flavor of RR we want to use for history topics. I could just make the proposal to use RR in general, then do the research after the proposal is approved, but stll deciding; two discussions risks fatigue. May just end up doing that anyway though. seefooddiet (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place of birth in people infoboxes (and its common romanization at the time)
Can someone help provide some clarity on the following questions? (these may be more appropriate to post at the talk for the infobox but I figured I'd try here first)
Template:Infobox says to "use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" in the birthplace parameter. How does this guideline apply to romanization? For example, Busan was commonly romanized as "Pusan" until 2000, when MR was officially replaced with RR. Should the infobox for people born in Busan pre-2000 say "Pusan" instead because that is how it was commonly known at the time?
What about people born in the city from 1910 to 1945 under Japanese rule, when the city was officially "Fuzan"?
For people born in Seoul under Japanese rule, should the place of birth be "Keijō" (as it was known in Japanese), or "Gyeongseong" (as it was known in Korean)?
Similarly, what about people born in Incheon under Japanese rule, should their place of birth be "Jinzen"?
For the record (and just in case I've been mistaken), another very common one I've been correcting is the use of "South Korea" or "North Korea" in the place of birth parameter for people born from 1910 to 1945... I've been replacing it with "Korea, Empire of Japan" which seems to be the most common precedent from what is currently used on articles of high-profile people from the era. RachelTensions (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't apply. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we follow current, not contemporary, romanization practices. We also have WP:KO-CONSISTENT. Thus we should use whatever the article title is, which is "Busan".
For "Korea, Empire of Japan", I've been meaning to open a discussion about this. I'm not sure what to do; it's not straightforward because the legality of the annexation is uncertain. De facto, Korea was a part of the Empire of Japan. But to my knowledge the annexation was made retroactively illegal after the annexation was lifted. "Korea, Empire of Japan" may give too much weight to one position in that debate.
For whether we use Japanese-language names for cities/provinces, we should use the most relevant article title verbatim. For Seoul during that period that'd be Keijō, although that page may need to be moved (see below). Many of the articles that use these Japanese-language names were created by Japan-oriented Wikipedia editors (which is fine; they didn't do anything wrong). However, they unilaterally used Japanese-language names instead of taking into consideration WP:COMMONNAME. To my knowledge nearly all current academic literature calls these places during the colonial period by their Korean names. So they may need to be moved.
For the Keijō article, I think there may be a case for renaming it to "Gyeongseong", based on common usage. Very few people know the name "Keijō", but due to Korean dramas (e.g. Gyeongseong Creature) probably a lot of people know "Gyeongseong".
Thanks for the clarification.Re: point number two, if not "Korea, Empire of Japan", then what? Couldn't be "Korean Empire" because despite the annexation (possibly) being declared retroactively illegal, the empire still ceased to exist. Using just "Korea" probably wouldn't be appropriate either because it referred to the geographical area, not any kingdom/empire/country/nation in specific.FYI the reason I was asking is because I've been working through that list of 190 or so people who are referred to as just "Korean" in their lead sentence... (I'll provide an update on my progress in that thread a little later). In that trek, I've found that a lot of people born 1910-1945 have "South Korea" in their place of birth parameter despite "South Korea" not existing at the time. RachelTensions (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People born in Korea from 1910–1945 we should just do "Korea, Empire of Japan" for now, for the sake of consistency. Once we reach a decision on what format is best it'll be easy to use WP:AWB to swap everything if needed. A note just in case: for their nationality, we should put whichever Korea they ended up being a citizen of; however there are some edge cases. Some people were primarily notable before the establishment of South Korea, and died soon after the country was established, e.g. Kim Ku. For them, keeping just "Korean" is fine I think.
If you're referring to the "nationality" parameter in infoboxes, MOS:INFONAT says that "In biographies, a |nationality= field should not be used."As far as nationality in the lead goes, when the lead just says "Korean" I've been adjusting the wording to fit the country that they've established themselves in post-1945 which I think is a good rule of thumb.In 99% of the cases it ends up being "South Korean" due to the relative rarity of the articles available on North Korean people... most North Korean bio articles we have are notable, at least in part, because they're North Korean, and therefore the previous editors of the articles made sure to say so in the lead. RachelTensions (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean for putting their nationality in the lead. For people like Kim Ku, calling him "South Korean" doesn't feel appropriate, considering he only lived for a year after the establishment of the country and was even opposed to its creation for a period of time. You're right that in 99% of cases it will be straightforward, I'm just speaking about the 1% where it isn't. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think MOS:CITIZEN covers the fringes: if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable. Describing Kim Ku as "South Korean" in the lead is probably not appropriate given his notability was established long before he, at least on paper, became a South Korean citizen, and he died shortly after the country's establishment. RachelTensions (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, my questions are answered - I'll continue the clean up using the established precedent and if an alternative to "Korea, Empire of Japan" ends up becoming accepted then we can fix it with AWB after that discussion happens.I'll also continue using "Keijō" until discussion happens resulting in the article's move to "Gyeongseong", in which case we can also fix with that AWB.Thanks for your insights! RachelTensions (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to put this bit about nationality and ethnicity into the MOS to save future debates. Related discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Wording of dual citizenship in lead sentences, Talk:Krystal Jung/Archive 1#Lead. We recently reached a consensus that, per MOS:ETHNICITY, the ethnic identifier "Korean-American" is generally not appropriate for use in the lead (except for if their ethnicity is relevant to their notability). Instead, we recommend the use of "South Korean and American", instead of "South Korean-American".
For Korean people from historical states that are unambiguously considered to be Korean (e.g. Silla, Joseon, Goryeo, Baekje, etc), I think it's probably fine to describe them as "Korean".
For states with disputed identities like Goguryeo, I think it may be more appropriate to say "X was a Goguryeo general", unless if you can demonstrate consensus in reliable sources that they are considered "Korean". @00101984hjw I'd appreciate your weighing in on this point. seefooddiet (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording "unambiguously considered to be Korean" could cause some trouble in the future. I'm sure you're aware of the sheer acrimony Koreans and Chinese have over the Goguryeo and Balhae controversies. These are just my two cents, but I'm concerned that nationalistic (or peculiarly anti-Chinese) Korean readers may blame this decision for Bothsideism.
In that sense... per WP:ETHNICITY... I think it may be more appropriate that we only clarify figures from Goryeo or later as "Korean", and state figures from the Three Kingdoms period (including Unified Silla) and prior as nationals of their corresponding kingdoms. Some reasons why:
1. Korea did not exist as a geographically united state before Unified Silla. According to my brief research about the issue, while Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo did share similarities and some sense of ethnic homogeneity, the concept of a unified ethnic Korean state did not exist during this period.
2. While Unified Silla did attempt policies to integrate conquered territories and populace ([18]) (according to NamuWiki Silla also propagandized ideas that the three kingdoms were ethnically united as "Samhan" states but unfortunately the source for this is from a book) these policies ultimatelyfailed.
3. Goryeo is where the word "Korea" came from. It was also the first unified Korean state which managed to maintain stability.
But anyways, that was my personal proposal; I'm fine with the original plan. It just feels off to exceptionalize Goguryeo considering the article summary for the state literally says it's Korean. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest labelling people from before Sillan unification with the kingdom they came from – it's more informative and involves less back-projection – but extending that to pre-Goryeo also makes sense. Kanguole21:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unified Silla was merely of a period of Silla's history, not a separate nation. Labelling post-unification Sillans separately as "Koreans" feels somewhat idiosyncratic imo. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every article on a royal figure from the Joseon dynasty has a long, unreferenced, overly excessive family section consisting of a bullet list of every relative, ancestor, and offspring. These most likely originate from a direct translation from the kowiki article. I would be delighted if there was a better way to format them, but currently it seems like these lists are just another chronic case of WP:TOOMUCH. I believe such detailed lists would find little use for readers outside of East Asia.
A few months ago I pruned probably over a hundred of these trees. I pruned them to just nuclear families: father, mother, siblings, children. I wasn't 100% thorough though; there may be trees that still have more than that. If you spot any, at the bare minimum they should be pruned to just the nuclear family.
I'm conflicted on total deletion. On the one hand, they're unreferenced. But nuclear families often aren't too much information for personal life sections. While I'm skeptical that some of these will ever be sourced at the current rate (many have been unsourced for 10+ years), I think these nuclear family trees are minimally harmful and somewhat useful for people. seefooddiet (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved this discussion over from WT:KOREA. I'm going to add something to the MOS to discourage this practice, so that it's easier to cite something instead of explaining it each time. seefooddiet (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I off base or does there seem to be a lot of unsourced hanja in BLPs? I just clicked through about 100 articles and of the articles that had Hanja name in the infobox, only one of them was sourced. For some names there could be hundreds of different combinations... surely this should be sourced in every instance. Are people just guessing?
Yes, it's not great but since it's generally minimally harmful it doesn't bother me so much in comparison to other issues on the WikiProject. For comparison, plenty of non-Korean BLPs have unsourced birth dates. For articles with higher page views I think we could make more of an effort to source the Hanja. seefooddiet (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if sources even exist for a lot of them... In many instances (especially for younger people), unless someone has stated somewhere what their Hanja are, I'm not sure where that information would be published reliably. RachelTensions (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; I have seen celebrities disclose it (sometimes in their autograph or on TV when introducing themselves). Some, even if they don't directly give the Hanja, give enough info abt the meaning of their names to allow for figuring out what Hanja they use.
For whatever reason, it is very common for non-English names everywhere to be unsourced. As seefooddiet says, not great, but not considered a significant problem. Sometimes people guess, sometimes someone might know and not think it needs a source. CMD (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that a lot of hanja names on Wikipedia are actually from Chinese-language sources, which are known to "invent" Chinese-character forms for native Korean names and unknown hanja names.
I sometimes remove Chinese-character forms that are clearly from Chinese-language sources (examples: #1, #2), but I am quite sure that there are lots of undetected ones. 172.56.232.61 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling a vast majority of them are either completely made up by people just looking for something to put in the empty "hanja" parameter, or pulled from Chinese sources that invent their own.What are the chances that people who use completely fabricated stage names like Baekho (singer), Cha Eun-woo or Eunhyuk even have hanja versions of those names in the first place? RachelTensions (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw I think people generally take these Chinese characters from other language Wikipedias or from Namuwiki.
For Baekho, the only mention of those Chinese characters on his namuwiki page is from a Taiwanese interview on YouTube. It's not clear from there whether he gave the video makers his Chinese characters or if they made them up.
For Cha, that hanja is present on his Namuwiki article, with no real source for it.
So at least 2/3 of those examples probably implicitly came from Chinese-language sources lol... unreliable per MOS:HANJAHANZI.
I agree we should treat unsourced Hanja with skepticism. I think we should allow tagging unsourced Hanja as citation needed, and sometimes deleting them. Mass deletion I think would be inappropriate, as some of these names are probably correct and these are minimally harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just worded it weirdly. I meant "We should handle this by tagging with CN in most cases, although deletion may still be acceptable" seefooddiet (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified on my user page (thank you! I never see these discussions). Unsure how much of an epidemic it is as I mainly see researcher pages these days and not more widely popular figures like singers or actors. I have a few times seen some really weird characters appearing under hanja, which clearly came from a Chinese language spelling and not their actual hanja. I would presume all or a significant amount of hanja appearing by stagename would be incorrect as younger generations care less and less about hanja than in the past. I would be surprised if artists spend the time and effort to make hanja for their stagename as it will never be see or used by...much of anyone. Is there something we can add to the code next to hanja so it won't appear on lists like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_hanja)? Mass deleting of existing hanja on pages would, in my view, cause more problems than it solves. Due to the kind of content I work on (these days mainly scientists and researchers as their contents don't get as much focus), I usually add hanja when I see it on some award posting (award website, press release, news article). I will occasionally find it on their Korean Wiki page and move it over and I typically add a note of such in the edit summary. I never use Namuwiki as Korean friends in years past mentioned contents are often tongue in cheek (comedy) so I wouldn't trust Namuwiki for that reason alone. If my information on that website is incorrect, especially as a lot of time as passed and I wouldn't be surprised if my information is out of date, please let me know. Considering the discussion here, I'll get in the habit of adding a citation for when I add hanja in the future. ₪RicknAsia₪05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of the only instances where someone under the age of 30 has explicitly stated their hanja name in a reliable source and someone still decided to just wing it and make it up... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯金所泫 seems to be what is used in Chinese sources, it's how it's written on Chinese wikipedia etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, people don't even bother to check the directly cited source.
The Son Na-eun article currently gives 孫娜恩 with a reference right next to it, but that reference actually gives 孫나은.
The Bang Min-ah article currently gives 方珉雅 with a reference right next to it, but that reference actually gives 方珉娥.
Per WP:UNSOURCED, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Even if something is in dictionaries, we shouldn't rely on people's word for that; instead people should cite the dictionaries themselves as evidence that the term is in there.
Tl;dr basically everything except for knowledge that's nearly universal (e.g. the sky is blue) or clearly derivable (e.g. 2 apples and 2 pears -> there were 4 pieces of fruit) needs a ref. seefooddiet (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not overdo it too. I think for cases like the Hanja for Busan and Gyeongbokgung the phrase Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:... material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, applies. Having citiations for all Hanja in all Korea-related articles will look aesthetically unappealing. 2406:3003:2006:26BE:247B:D80E:E6B3:C8DD (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this rule is really unlikely to be fully enforced. Probably tens of thousands of pages use Hanja, and our WikiProject has bigger priorities than sourcing all these things at the moment imo.
We don't really need to specifically call out that certain things don't need to be sourced. What we could do is call out that hanja for people's names especially needs to be sourced. RachelTensions (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still weighing what to do. I think sourcing all Hanja is/should be mandatory per overall Wikipedia guidelines. Also, even for non name terms, the issues relating to other Sinosphere country Chinese characters apply, which adds to need for sourcing.
