- The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:Withdrawn with no prejudice against further requests upon changes toWP:NCKO(non-admin closure)Quadrantal (talk)22:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goryeosa →KoryŏsaKoryŏsa –WP:COMMONNAME (ngram) andWP:NCKO (this is a pre-1945 concept, soMcCune–Reischauer is preferred. This is a secondary argument to common name, either way)104.232.119.107 (talk)23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting here to make visible for moderator,withdrawing request, per below.104.232.119.107 (talk)15:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the usage, and WP:NCKO notwithstanding, McCune–Reischauer is not used much for pre-1945 topics (nbGoguryeo,Baekje,Silla,Balhae,Goryeo andJoseon, all in RR). — AjaxSmack 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with MR not being used much for pre-1945 topics. English-language academic literature on pre-1945 Korea overwhelmingly uses MR; style guidelines for most major journals mandate the use of MR. You're pointing to Wikipedia articles, but precedent isn't everything.
- WP:NCKO andMOS:KO have been pretty behind the curve for a long time, and are often poorly followed. I've been spearheading a number of changes to both; I've got a queue of proposals in mind, one of which is on the naming ofGoguryeo,Baekje, etc.104.232.119.107 (talk)04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I'm suggesting that ngram is missing out on spellings used in academic journals. Basically every paper about pre-modern Korea uses MR; that overwhelmingly suggests common name.104.232.119.107 (talk)05:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "English-language academic literature on pre-1945 Korea overwhelmingly uses MR..." RR was only invented in 2000, so naturally any source before that wouldn't use it. A parallel would be Mandarin Chinesepinyin that came in to wide use only after 1979/1982, but is nonetheless used in Wikipedia for pre-1980s topics. — AjaxSmack 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose –WP:NCKO specifies pre-1945names that should be romanized using MR. Goryeosa is not a name of a person and therefore, it doesn't apply. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the manual of style for Korea-related articles. If you wish to standardize the romanization of Korean words and phrases using MR, you are free to address this issue atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean), reach a consensus, and update the naming convention accordingly.Motjustescribe (talk)05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Arghhg this is another issue withWP:NCKO though. "Names" in that header is vague, it lists scope as more than just people names; it says "Personal, organization, and company names". Does that include works or is it strictly limited to people, organizations, and companies?
- The reason I'm criticizing NCKO here is because people are trying to point to a standard that's poorly written and defined. Yes, I'm going to propose changes and will get consensus. I've already been doing so (I'm one of the IP users on the talk page)104.232.119.107 (talk)05:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally agree that it is poorly written, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. Adopting McCune-Reischauer for everything pre-1945 won't solve all the problems because there is continuity between premodern and modern names. For example, Chŏnju during the Joseon (or Chosŏn) dynasty is still Jeonju—just romanized differently. The fact that the Koreas are divided doesn't help either, as they use different romanization systems. So Korean romanization is divided diachronically and synchronically.
- Anyway, the cart shouldn't come before the horse, and these decisions should be in keeping with applicable guideline and policy (seeWP:RMCIDC#Determining consensus). I suggest this move request be closed without moving and be reopened once the naming convention has been updated.Motjustescribe (talk)13:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear I'm not suggesting we ignore it. IMO nothing I said contradicts NCKO, which funnily is the issue: NCKO is too vague.
- Latter paragraph is fair enough. I'llwithdraw the nom for now and reopen later.104.232.119.107 (talk)13:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:NCKO calls for MR for these types of topics, it has not been implemented for years as my examples above show. — AjaxSmack 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:No consensus — Amakuru (talk)20:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goryeosa →KoryŏsaKoryŏsa – Trying this move discussion again (I opened the last one on an IP). Since the last move discussion, we completely rewroteWP:NCKO to be more explicit. Relevant section:WP:KO-WORKS. Additional rationale provided here:[1].seefooddiet (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. ASUKITE16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: Relisting and will ping prior participantsTiggerJay (talk)05:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my argumentsabove. One user has revisedWP:NCKO (andMOS:KO which it refers to), but I don't see consensus for this on the talk pages. To get wider input, my suggestion would be to nominate some major topics likeGoguryeo,Baekje,Balhae,Goryeo orJoseon that are Romanized in RR and then move from there. — AjaxSmack 05:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not modification from one user? If you haven't seen the discussions for both those pages, you haven't looked very hard; we worked on them for around 5-6 months. These changes were approved and reaffirmed by WikiProject Korea multiple times over a long period of time. And the wider input thing is irrelevant; even if those pages were changed, those are separate topics. This is an article about a text that has separate criteria for its naming.seefooddiet (talk)00:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please link me to what you're talking about? I sawthis discussion which ended with you saying"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." Nothing else recent, though. — AjaxSmack 00:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an archive to the talk page. Pages 3 to 5 are what we discussed over many months. The result of the discussions are the new MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. It's not all just me; that would be inappropriate and I'm frankly not sure why you would suggest that without looking in page archives.seefooddiet (talk)03:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Support perWP:COMMONNAME as well asWP:NCKO. Per the Ngrams[2], the term Goryeosa has never been used commonly over Koryŏsa. In 2022, Koryŏsa was used nearly 6.46 times as much as Goryeosa, which isn't exactly a small difference. Around 86.6% of texts would use Koryŏsa over Goryeosa according to the numbers from the Ngrams. The MR term, Koryŏsa, is used more often as English-language academic literature on pre-1945 Korea overwhelmingly uses MR. Unlike pinyin, RR still hasn't caught on in English-language literature even to this every day; most sources not published in South Korea still use MR even after 2000. For example, last year in September 2024, the University of Hawaii Press published an English language translation of the subject of the article, with its title rendered in the proposed name of Koryŏsa, not the current article title[3]. Even if you were to disregardWP:NCKO, it is clearly the common name and should be rendered as such.⁂CountHacker (talk)07:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Saying "these changes were approved and reaffirmed by WikiProject Korea multiple times over a long period of time" appears to be a joke: in order to obtain a crowd-sourced Encyclopedia, a crowd is required, while everyone knows that the "WikiProject Korea" is as dead as the proverbial horse. Using Koryŏsa would only be adopting the hawaii.edu POV. The common name is Goryeosa (40.000 Google hits), and not Koryŏsa (16.000 Google hits). In fact, the rank and file user has no idea about how to type Koryŏsa (except by copy/pasting).Pldx1 (talk)15:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Really inappropriate tone in your message. Watch how you talk to others on Wikipedia. You also don't really appear to understand how the romanization of Korean works and why we chose the rules we did.seefooddiet (talk)18:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, google search hits are less reliable than Ngram hits. You don't really appear to understand why that is either. Ngrams searches usage in books. Google search can take into account Wikipedia, social media, and Wikipedia mirrors.seefooddiet (talk)18:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- A really inappropriate [WP:BLUDGEON] of this discussion. But also a logical failure. The target of this encyclopedia is not the PhD holder from hawai.edu, but the ordinary person, or even the reader of social networks. All things considered, this looks like the categorical rejection of hangul by the so-called literati.Pldx1 (talk)12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how I bludgeoned the discussion.seefooddiet (talk)16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: second relist as this is leaning toward no consensus at the moment ASUKITE16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:WikiProject Korea andWikiProject History have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE16:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
