Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC on romanizing author names in refs

See above post. Tl;dr Korea-related articles currently don't have guidance on how to handle Hangul names in reference templates. This has led to a wide variety of practices, with arguable positives/negatives to each of them. I'm proposing we establish a guideline in MOS:KO, in which Hangul names are to be romanized (with nuances). 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Per my comment above, best practices for Hangul words (names, titles, publishers) in citations should recommend displaying both Hangul and English translations (or transliterations for given names). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I can easily support names (per the masking/linking params) and titles (per the |trans-title param). Publisher I'm not aware of a good way to display orig Hangul and Latin text. If there is such a way then I'd support, but if we tried to squeeze everything into the publisher param, e.g. |publisher=안녕 (Annyeong), I think it's strictly speaking not a correct usage of the parameter. The publisher is not "안녕 (Annyeong)", it's 안녕.

  An alternative is to do what MOS:ZH#Citation style recommends (last para/example); romanize names without orig Hangul. What are your thoughts? 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Piotrus courtesy tag in case didn't see 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  If there is no equivalent of author-mask in the template that would display "안녕 (Annyeong)" then we should probably ask for the template to be expanded with such a parameter - that would be a win-win. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - romanize name and provide original Hangul using |author1-mask Just spotted this thread and it happens to be related to my recent Help Desk post here. In short, my view is that we should always romanize the author and provide the original script via the |author1-mask parameter, as similarly suggested via MOS:CHINESE#Citation style. For example:

Markup	Renders as
{{Cite book | last = Hong | first = Yi-Seop | author-mask1 = Hong Yi-Seop 홍이섭 | script-title = ko:세종대왕 | trans-title = Sejong the Great | publisher = 세종대왕기념사업회 [Sejong the Great Memorial Society] | location = 서울 [Seoul] | orig-date = 1971 | year = 2011 | edition = 9th | isbn = 978-89-8275-660-3 | language = ko }}	Hong Yi-Seop 홍이섭 (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). 서울 [Seoul]: 세종대왕기념사업회 [Sejong the Great Memorial Society]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.

While there are some cons to this approach, this would be until such time the as the {{citation}} template is updated to include additional parameters such as |script-author1= |script-last1= |script-first1= Nonabelian (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Also...just a note to say that much of this looks to have been discussed in a similar context in the following locations on MOS:CHINESE:
  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8 § CS1 with native names
  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 6 § Citations of Chinese-language sources

Nonabelian (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the OP; thanks for your insights. For showing translations of publisher and loc, I'll lean oppose for now. For publisher, reasoning per my note about ko name + English name not strictly being all part of the publisher's name. Location name I'm opposed because common name is possible to easily establish for locations, so I think no need to show Korean text.

In short, for now I only propose guidelines around Latin author name and giving translated title. 106.102.129.92 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Also a minor style thing: do we use square brackets or parentheses? E.g. |author-mask=Hong Yi-Seop [홍이섭] or |author-mask=Hong Yi-Seop (홍이섭)?

The square brackets match those produced automatically by |trans-title, e.g. |title=안녕 |trans-title=Hello displays as 안녕 [Hello].

However, MOS:ZH recommends parentheses for some reason. I'm tempted to say use square brackets for consistency with |trans-title, but I don't have a strong preference. 59.5.79.44 (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But they wouldn't be consistent: |trans-title= takes the English translation of the title and puts square brackets around it, whereas here you're talking about the original name in Hangul. By the way, the Hangul title shouldn't go in |title=: it should be in |script-title= preceded by ko:. Kanguole 07:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. TIL |script-title is preferred for non-Latin titles.

Thoughts on parentheses vs square? 59.5.79.44 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Parentheses would be clearer. Square brackets would be confusing since this is the opposite of titles. Kanguole 08:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Going through the archives of the CS1 Help Page, it looks like square brackets are used for descriptive or editorial notes that are not part of the original reference but provide additional context or clarification. Thus the trans-title or orig-date parameters are rendered in square brackets for this editorial purpose. This concept seems to align with use of square brackets per WP:MOS and APA recommendations. Therefore it can be argued that, in order for consistency, the preferred formatting of the author-mask parameter (or indeed other parameters) should in fact be:

• [Hong Yi-Seop] 홍이섭 (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). 서울 [Seoul]: 세종대왕기념사업회 [Sejong the Great Memorial Society]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.

I have amended the above markup to take this into account. Nonabelian (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I need to think about this, but I'm leaning towards parentheses instead of square brackets. I'm a little worried that casuals will find this usage of square brackets unintuitive/uncommon. This usage of brackets comes in the opposite order to |trans-title. On the other hand, people will already be used to "Hong Gil-dong (홍길동)" because this is already practiced in article bodies. We also wanna align with what other style guidelines are doing on Wikipedia; I've yet to see refs in any language use that format. Although admittedly MOS:ZH is the only MOS I know of that uses parentheses; has anyone seen other practices?

Also, what's your thoughts on place name romanization practice? I'm a bit skeptical of the need for "서울 [Seoul]"; "Seoul" is more concise, and the Hangul doesn't add significant understanding. 59.5.79.44 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 59.5.79.44 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I was incorrect about using square brackets around the author's name. The APA convention, when also citing the Hangul, is to give the original terms and present them directly behind the romanized terms without parentheses, brackets, or quotation marks at all. Thus above should be rendered as:

• Hong Yi-Seop 홍이섭 (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). Seoul: Sejong the Great Memorial Society. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.

Have once again amended markup. With regards to place name and publisher: I currently haven't formed any strong views. I think either hangul, latin text or both is fine. If both, square brackets for translation per reason above. Nonabelian (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Now I flip my vote to no parentheses/square brackets. Just looked at various manuals of style for Korean studies journals (Wikipedia category).

The Chicago Manual of Style (henceforth "CMOS") seems to be popularly used in Korean studies and is annoyingly paywalled.

• Yale Library gives this guide for Korean in the CMOS: [1]
  • Seems to validate no parentheses/square brackets

Journals:

• The Journal of Korean Studies (CMOS with modifications): [2]
  • Pages 15–17 relevant, page 17 validates your formatting (no parens or square brackets, non-Latin name after Latin)
  • Place of publication does not provide orig. Hangul, just uses English common name (17)
• Korea Journal (CMOS more or less): [3]
• Acta Koreana (CMOS)
  • Can't find any relevant guidance for us here
• North Korean Review (none?): [4]
  • Seemingly little guidance at all
• Review of Korean Studies (CMOS): [5]
• European Journal of Korean Studies (CMOS): [6]
  • Explicitly supports no parentheses/square brackets
• International Journal of Korean History (CMOS): [7]
• Seoul Journal of Korean Studies (CMOS): [8]

Of these, the Journal of Korean Studies seems to have the most fleshed-out manual; it's also among the most prestigious in the field. I think we could refer to it in future; there's some more things I'd like to hash out after this topic. 59.5.79.44 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look into this too. In addition, I have found a suitable academic reference which directly addresses formatting of Korean here. It cites the Yale Library ref you found and previously provided APA guidelines. Nonabelian (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the OP. Summary thus far. I'm proposing we follow the example reference format provided by Nonabelian above, except for the |publisher and |location parameters. Those are still uncertain; I oppose providing Hangul for location when WP:COMMONNAME is known, and not sure how to format publisher. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole @Piotrus thoughts on conversation just above, where we decided no parentheses/square brackets in author-mask, e.g. |author-mask1 = Hong Yi-Seop 홍이섭? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess I have no preference here. Except that I'd think standarizing things with translated title parameter would be good, and it does enforce square brackets on the title, doesn't it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes translated title will be part of the MOS and square brackets is automatic. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I managed to find some time to head to the library and obtain a copy of guides from the MLA, APA, Oxford, and CMOS. The CMOS is by far the most comprehensive in terms of how to handle foreign language sources. It is not a surprise that most Korean journals seem to use a modified version of it. 



For publication locations, the standard English word should be used. For publishers, the original name of the publisher should be used untranslated, even if the location is given in an English form. In the context of non-Latin scripts, such as Korean, that means transliterating the publisher name. As with names, the original Hangul script may be given immediately following the transliteration. A translation of the publisher could be enclosed in square brackets, but this should be used sparingly and only if believed absolutely necessary. A translation of a title should always be given in square brackets.

The Yale Quick Start Guide references the HJAS style sheet, which provides some interesting reference examples. Here are just three, quoting their presentation exactly:

• Han-Chung munhwa kyoryu wa nambang haero 韓中文化交流와 南方海路, ed. Cho Yŏngnok 曹永祿 (Seoul: Kukhak charyowŏn, 1997).
• Ch’oe Hyŏnbae 崔鉉培, Han’gŭl kal 한글갈 (Kyŏngsŏng: Chŏngŭmsa, 1940), p. 119.
• Cho Chiman 조지만, Chosŏn sidae ŭi hyŏngsapŏp: Tae Myŏngnyul kwa Kukchŏn 조선시대의 형사법: 대명률과 국전 (Seoul: Kyŏngin munhwasa, 2007), pp. 31–56.

How should the above sources be ideally formatted in Wikipedia per a future version of MOS:KO? Based on what we know so far, it should probably be the following:

Markup	Renders as
{{citation | title = Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero | trans-title = Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route | script-title = ko:韓中文化交流와 南方海路 | editor-last = Jo | editor-first = Yeongnok | editor-mask1 = Jo Yeongnok 조영록 曹永祿 | language = Korean | publisher = Gukhak jaryowon 국학자료원 國學資料院 [Institute for Korean National Studies] | location = Seoul | year = 1997 | isbn = 978-89-8206-169-1 }} * {{citation | title = Hangeul gal | trans-title = Hangeul Knife | script-title = ko:한글갈 | author1-first = Hyeonbae | author1-last = Choe | author-mask1 = Choe Hyeonbae 최현배 崔鉉培 | author-link1 = Choe Hyeon-bae | language = Korean | publisher = Jeongeumsa 정음사 | location = Gyeongseong | year = 1940 | oclc = 908503744 }} * {{citation | title = Joseon sidae ui hyeongsabeop: Dae Myeongnyul gwa Gukjeon | trans-title = Criminal Law of the Joseon Dynasty: The Great Ming Code and National Code | script-title = ko: 조선시대의 형사법: 대명률과 국전 | author1-first = Jiman | author1-last = Cho | author-mask1 = Cho Jiman 조지만 | language = Korean | publisher = Gyeongin Munhwasa 경인문화사 | location = Seoul | year = 2007 | isbn = 978-89-499-0499-3 }}	Jo Yeongnok 조영록 曹永祿, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 국학자료원 國學資料院 [Institute for Korean National Studies], ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 Choe Hyeonbae 최현배 崔鉉培 (1940), Hangeul gal 한글갈 [Hangeul Knife] (in Korean), Gyeongseong: Jeongeumsa 정음사, OCLC 908503744 Cho Jiman 조지만 (2007), Joseon sidae ui hyeongsabeop: Dae Myeongnyul gwa Gukjeon 조선시대의 형사법: 대명률과 국전 [Criminal Law of the Joseon Dynasty: The Great Ming Code and National Code] (in Korean), Seoul: Gyeongin Munhwasa 경인문화사, ISBN 978-89-499-0499-3

Observations and suggestions for a Reference MOS:KO:

• Transliterations for the title of a work should ideally be provided for accessibility (as much as I personally do not like them!)
  • The above have been transliterated from MR into RR. Transliterations should follow that of the article in question.
  • Transliterations of titles should have sentence-style capitalization.
• As no transliteration is perfect, provide Hangul in the following areas:
  • The author's name via the author-mask parameter immediately following the romanized name.
  • The title via the script-title parameter.
  • The journal, newspaper, magazine, website name etc. via the script-work parameter.
  • The publisher name via the publisher parameter, immediately following the transliteration in the same field.
• When referencing a source that contains Hanja:
  • If the author provides their name in Hanja, keep it for referenceability and also include it in the author-mask parameter, along with the romanization and Hangul.
  • If the title of the work is in Hanja, do not translate it to Hangul, just provide the original Hanja in the script-title and translate it via trans-title.
• For both Hangul and Hanja, do not use {{lang}} or {{korean}} within parameters in a {{citation}} template, as this interferes with Wikipedia:COinS.

Nonabelian (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmfhhfhgh complicated...

• I'd argue we're not obligated to closely follow the CMOS. We already don't in some aspects.
• I don't like transliterated titles either and would advocate for us not using them. MOS:ZH doesn't mandate them. Imo they don't add any understanding, nor are they that useful in discussions. I frequently use them only to reconstruct what the Hangul is lol.
• I think references should use MR/RR based on when/where they were published, and not standardized within an article. I.e. for pre-1945/NK works we should use MR, and RR for post-1945 SK.
• For providing author/publisher Hangul, I'd argue (and so does the CMOS) it shouldn't be mandatory. Especially not mandatory if readers can be expected to reliably reconstruct the Hangul from the transliteration. If the transliteration is ambiguous or unorthodox, Hangul should be mandated.
  • Reason: we should minimize the amount of mandatory content in references; people are lazy and the more requirements we ask of them the less they'll want to do and more mistakes we invite. We're already asking a lot of them with atypical params like |script-title, |author-mask, etc.
• For providing author/publisher Hanja, I'd argue we should only provide if it significantly aids understanding in some way.
  • Examples: some authors/publishers prefer Hanja over Hangul and basically only provide Hanja names. Some people have common Hangul names, but possibly unique Hanja names.
  • Same reasoning as above point
• Agree that if a work's title is in Hanja only, we should keep it as Hanja and not transliterate/translate it into Hangul.
• For place names, if there isn't a clear WP:COMMONNAME for a place (especially "경성/京城") the CMOS seems to suggest (and I agree) that we transliterate to MR/RR/Modified Hepburn/etc based on time/location/the language of the work.
  • For example, for Gyeongseong, is it "Keijō", "Kyŏngsŏng", "Gyeongseong", or "Seoul"? I'd argue we should use "Kyŏngsŏng", as it's a Korean-language text published pre-1945.

104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Replying to all your points:

• Transliteration: I have very very reluctantly come to the conclusion that transliteration might be a necessary evil for references. Personally, I never use them. However, WP:Accessibility is quite clear: "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." Therefore Transliteration is mandatory according all the style guides as much as we don't like it. This mandate seems to exist for several reasons:
  • Compatibility with Old Browsers: Some older browsers may not support non-Latin characters.
  • Accessibility for the Visually Impaired: Blind individuals using text-to-speech software benefit from transliterations.
  • COinS Software: Some citation tools may not support non-Latin characters, displaying empty boxes instead.

You could argue that transliteration isn't needed if a translation is provided, but translations can vary while transliterations generally do not. The purpose of a reference is verifiability, and consistent transliterations support this.

• Transliteration Based on Publication Date: I strongly oppose the idea of varying transliteration based on publication date. If we must use transliteration, it should be consistent across the article, including references. Part of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is consistent referencing.
• Clarification on Current MOS:KO Transliteration Guidance: Upon careful reading current MOS:KO guidelines state the following:
  • South Korea and Pre-1945 Korea: Use the Revised Romanization (RR) system for articles about South Korea and topics related to Korea before the division in 1945.
  • North Korea and Pre-1945 Korean Names: Use McCune–Reischauer (excluding the DPRK’s official variant) for articles about North Korea and pre-1945 Korean names.

Therefore, most articles, including those on “Keijō,” should use RR if needed. The guidance might seem contradictory at first (I had to reread it several times!) but it does make sense. (See Romanization module & templates thread for strikethrough reason) We should consider tidying up the wording of the MOS for better clarity.

• Mandating Hangul: I agree that including Hangul is not mandatory if transliteration is provided. The MOS should also clarify that it is better to add a reference, even if in the wrong format, for another editor to clean up later, rather than not adding a reference at all! We want people contributing and a reference MOS ultimate usefulness is for helping people get to GA/FA status imho.
• Author Hanja: I agree that including Hanja for authors is not mandatory. It should only be included if the source provides it, and even then, it is optional. Only the romanized name should be mandatory.
• Publisher Names: Following WP:MOS’s "Do Not Invent" guidance, we should not translate publisher names. Instead, provide a transliteration and optionally the original script (Hangul/Hanja).
• Place Names: Here is the relevant guidance: “Current, commonly used English names for cities are usually preferred whenever such forms exist. If in doubt about what form to use, record the name of the city as it appears in the source. (Names for cities such as Beijing or Mumbai that were once commonly known under older forms can usually be recorded as they appear in the source.” Therefore, if the source lists the location as "京城", record it using the English equivalent, "Keijō." If the source states "경성", use "Gyeongseong." Go with whatever the source says, using the most common English equivalent.
• Final Thoughts In short, I've penned some example do's and don'ts below. I don't propose that they form the main substance of an reference section for MOS:KO, more an appendix, and might help clarify current opinions to any one reading this current talk page thread. I'm very conscious that we've veered of the man topic of this RfC. I propose we all begin working on a draft MOS:KO somewhere else and submit for approval here when folks think we have something viable in a separate RfC. I don't think anyone is arguing against the use of the romanization for authors or the use of an author-mask parameter.

Proposed reference template examples for MOS

Examples citations of Korean sources Per WP:CITESTYLE, editors can use any appropriate reference style for a particular article, so long as it is consistent. Editors are strongly encouraged to use appropriate Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 template when listing works. The following examples explain common do's and don'ts when using Wikipedia's Citation style but apply equally well to APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style etc. too. Correctly formatted examples Y Jo Yeongnok, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 Reference provides transliteration per WP:Accessibility Y Jo Yeongnok, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 Reference provides transliteration and translation in square brackets. Y Jo Yeongnok 曹永祿, ed. (1997), 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 國學資料院, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 While the reference does not provide a transliteration of the title, it does provide a translation and optional original script in Hangul/Hanja Y Jo Yeongnok 曹永祿, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 國學資料院, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 Reference provides transliteration, translation and optional original script in Hangul/Hanja Common Formatting Mistakes N 曹永祿, ed. (1997), 韓中文化交流와 南方海路, 서울: 國學資料院, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 Original script in Hangul and Hanja is presented without transliteration. N Jo, Yeongnok, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 國學資料院, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 The author-mask parameter has not been used leading to the name not being properly formated. N Jo Yeongnok 曹永祿, ed. (1997), Han-Jung Munhwa Gyoryu Wa Nambang Haero 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 國學資料院, ISBN 978-89-8206-169-1 The transliteration has been overly capitalized. Non-latin transliterations should be capitalised sentence style meaning only the first word and any proper nouns should be capitalized. Other examples ? Jo Yeongnok 조영록 曹永祿, ed. (1997), Han-Jung munhwa gyoryu wa nambang haero 한중문화교류와 남방해로 韓中文化交流와 南方海路 [Han-Chinese Cultural Exchange and the Southern Sea Route] (in Korean), Seoul: Gukhak jaryowon 국학자료원 國學資料院 [Institute for Korean National Studies] The editor has provided additional information not contained in the source. They have translated the title into Hangul from Hanja and also provided an english translation of the publisher in square brackets. This extra information would usually be deemed unnecessary. In unusual circumstances it might be acceptable, for instance if the source has no ISBN, DOI, OCLC or archive URL and would otherwise be very difficult to verify. Unusual Examples The following references are other examples from a HJAS style sheet. Naemubu che-2 kwa 内務部 第二課, “Okku sŏbu surijohap kwan’gye sŏryu” 沃溝西部水利組合關係書類 [ca. 1908–1914]; MS no. 90-0741, National Archives of Korea 국가기록원, Taejŏn, South Korea. Tae Myŏngnyul chikhae 大明律直解 [seventeenth-century xylographic imprint of 1395 edition], 30 kwŏn in 4 vols., v. 2, k. 6, p. 2a; No. 古 5130-11, Kyujanggak Archive 규장각, Seoul National University 서울대학교, Seoul. See the daily entry for Sejong’s 世宗 reign year 26, month 2, day 29 (kyŏngja 庚子) [1444; Sejong 26/02/29 (kyŏngja)] in Chosŏn wangjo sillok 朝鮮王朝實錄, comp. National Institute of Korean History 國史編纂委員會 (Kwach’ŏn, Kyŏnggido: Kuksa p’yŏnch’an wiwŏnhoe, 2006– ) [hereafter Sillok], http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kda_12602020_001. T’aejong 1 太宗 [1401]/08/22 (muin 戊寅) in Sillok, http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kca_10108022_001. These references are in CMOS format and some elements do not easly fit into the {{citation}} template. Per WP:CITESTYLE editors do not use these templates and can use an alternative citation style, so long as it is consistent. In the examples above, they can be formatted using the {{wikicite}} template: Text.{{sfnp|Tae Myŏngnyul chikhae (c. 17th Century)}} Some more text. And finally, some more text over here. == Notes == {{reflist}} == References == {{refbegin|indent=yes}} * {{wikicite | ref = {{harvid|Tae Myŏngnyul chikhae (c. 17th Century)}} | reference = Tae Myŏngnyul chikhae 大明律直解 [seventeenth-century xylographic imprint of 1395 edition], 30 kwŏn in 4 vols., v. 2, k. 6, p. 2a; No. 古 5130-11, Kyujanggak Archive 규장각, Seoul National University 서울대학교, Seoul.}} {{refend}}

Nonabelian (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this research, grateful to have all this input!

I agree we should just redo MOS:KO in a draft altogether, then ask for approval. It's much easier to do a complete rewrite than it is to ask for approval on each individual decision. One thing I want to get your thoughts on: I'd like to have MOS:KO and WP:NCKO merged completely, just like MOS:JA. It's confusing having to point to two separate but strongly related guidelines.

• For transliterations for titles, you've convinced me too; let's make them required.
  • However, I'm skeptical about what MOS:KO/WP:NCKO say about romanization; the guidance being split on those two pages makes it even more confusing. We should unify them into a single and more explicit standard, and potentially revise them. I feel like McCune–Reischauer is underrepresented in our guidance compared to how ubiquitous it is in academic-level work on Korea.
  • Until a significant revision happens, for the references section, we should keep the guidance vague on what transliteration system to use. In other words, in MOS:KO#References, we should just say "romanize per MOS:KO#Romanization". This way we can focus on just updating the romanization guidance without worrying about updating MOS:KO#References too.
• For publisher names, I'll again argue that if the English common name for a publisher is well established, there's no need to provide the Korean name at all. This is especially so if the publisher has a Wikipedia article. In the unusual examples, you provided "National Archives of Korea 국가기록원"; I'd argue it could just be "National Archives of Korea". Same with "Seoul National University 서울대학교" -> "Seoul National University".

104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I do think that we should probably merge MOS:KO and WP:NCKO yes, but only in time.
• Agree on unifying guidance into a single place and the step-by-step approach. I'm actually of the opinion the 1945 rule isn't the best, I think each article is best served by having its own consensus: if there are a bunch of driven editors with lots of sources in MR about a topic in 1965 and they want to edit the article to be in MR for good reason, sounds fine to me? same thing for RR. Whatever gets more quality content covered in English.
• If a publisher publishes their name in English, give the English. If a publisher publishes the name in English and Hangul, give the English. If the publisher gives the name in Hangul, give the transliteration + Hangul optionally. Key focus on references is verifiability. Especially if the source is missing an ISBN, archive URL, DOI etc giving the publisher "as is" is going to make it a lot easier to find
• Feel free to create a draft or userpage sandbox or something and post in a sperate thread here. I'm getting round to it but you might beat me to it!--Nonabelian (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Now we should decide what action to take. I can tentative support any proposal you make for a reference section in the MOS; you already have a relatively complete section, I'm unlikely to rewrite one myself, and I think we will agree on almost all of it.

  Other replies:

  • Interesting thought on the per-article basis for MR/RR, hadn't considered that... Will think about it. Maybe best to discuss elsewhere.
  • For publishers I'm still a little skeptical that using an unambiguous English official name could constitute invention.
    • But now that I think about it, I've seen some publishers change their English names over time while keeping their Korean names. Maybe transliteration is fine as a default. Maybe a piped wikilink for the transliteration to the current Wiki article can be recommended, e.g. [[Current English title|transliteration]] or something.
  • I may take a go at merging MOS:KO and WP:NCKO; will post link if I start on it.

  104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've begun a draft. I have posted a notification about it in a separate post here.--Nonabelian (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

One comment—

For providing author/publisher Hangul, I'd argue (and so does the CMOS) it shouldn't be mandatory. Especially not mandatory if readers can be expected to reliably reconstruct the Hangul from the transliteration. If the transliteration is ambiguous or unorthodox, Hangul should be mandated.

I agree that including Hangul is not mandatory if transliteration is provided.

I disagree with this. Romanized Korean names are actually quite ambiguous. See the following cases:

• Kim Dae-jung and Youn Yuh-jung
• Chun Doo-hwan and Chun Woo-hee
• Even in a single name: Jun Sung Ahn

At least for personal names, including the original hangul name should be always mandatory (if it is provided in the source). 172.56.232.246 (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

One more case: Even Korean-language media do not always correctly determine the original hangul name from a romanized Korean name. Seung-Hui Cho was originally reported as 조승휘 (example), but later reports use 조승희. 172.56.232.109 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

When using strict RR or MR, this problem doesn't happen but your point is very well taken when using modified RR and MR for Korean names (as of course happens almost exclusively):

Korean: 김대중 (Gim Dae-jung) (Kim Dae-jung)

Korean: 윤여정 (Yun Yeo-jeong) (Youn Yuh-jung)

Korean: 전두환 (Jeon Du-hwan) (Chun Doo-hwan)

Korean: 천우희 (Cheon U-hui) (Chun Woo-hee)

I was thinking about resolving via changes to the naming convention, something in line with the below which has been added to the latest draft for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal):

Proposed romanization process for people's names as part of a revised MOS

See also: § Author's name For Korean names of people, follow the below guidance step by step 1. Use established English common name In the first instance, use the established English common name from reliable sources. This ensures that names are recognized and consistent with widely accepted usage. 2. Personal preference romanization In the second instance, use the Romanization of the personal preference of the person in question. This respects individual choices and ensures that names are represented as preferred by the individuals themselves. 3. Modified transliteration based on historical context If the above cannot be established, transliterate the name into RR if active after 1945, or MR if active before 1945, then perform the following modifications to the transliterated name: Modifications to common Korean family names Hangul RR MR Common Modified Romanization Korean: 김 Gim Kim Kim Korean: 이 I Yi Lee Korean: 박 Bak Pak Park Korean: 최 Choe Ch'oe Choi Korean: 정 Jeong Chŏng Jung Korean: 강 Gang Kang Kang Korean: 조 Jo Cho Cho Korean: 윤 Yun Yun Yoon Korean: 장 Jang Chang Jang Korean: 임 Im Im Lim Modifications to common Korean given name syllables Hangul RR MR Common Modified Romanization Korean: 현 Hyeon Hyŏn Hyun Korean: 우 U U Woo Korean: 훈 Hun Hun Hoon Korean: 영 Yeong Yŏng Young Korean: 윤 Yun Yun Yoon Korean: 성 Seong Sŏng Sung Korean: 희 Heui Hŭi Hee Korean: 준 Jun Chun Joon Korean: 민 Min Min Min Korean: 정 Jeong Chŏng Jung Then hyphenate each syllable of the given name. Example: Y천우희 -> Cheon U hui -> Chun Woo-hee 4. Ambiguity and many-to-one mapping If a name based on modified RR or MR creates a many-to-one mapping, such as Chun (전 and 천) and Woo (우 and 유), and the person in question does not have thier own Wikipedia article, the Hangul should be provided in the article text in a parenthetical gloss using the {{korean}} template. This additional detail helps resolve any ambiguity and ensures clarity. For example: Y Chun Doo-hwan (Korean: 전두환)

For referencing specifically:

• Hangul in references
  • If the name is provided in latin text as part of the reference section or bibliography, Hangul is not mandatory as long as there is an ISBN, DOI, OCLC, Archive URL, etc., which clearly identifies the source. These identifiers provide sufficient verifiability without the need for Hangul.
• Ambiguity in references without identifiers
  • Even if the reference has no identifier, the ambiguity is unlikely to cause significant issues, similar to how an English source referenced as "Sam Smith" could be either "Samantha" or "Samuel." The odds of multiple authors with the same title of works in the same year causing confusion are very low. In such rare cases, if ambiguity does interfere with source verifiability, the source likely fails WP:V anyway. In any case, Hangul can optionally be provided.

In short, I think Hangul should be encouraged in places but I'm not sure I would go as far as "mandating" it for references. Nonabelian (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: Even with strict RR/MR, ambiguity still exists.

• RR: Given names 빛나 and 샛별 are romanized "Bitna" and "Saetbyeol" respectively – syllable-final consonants ㅊ and ㅅ both become "t".
• MR: Consonant assimilation between syllables is reflected in personal names as well. For example, 김석령 is "Kim Sŏngnyŏng". It is not possible to unambiguously determine what "ngn" originally is.

"Hangul in references": Agree.

"Ambiguity in references without identifiers": I am not quite sure about this, but I have no comments on that at this moment.

"Modifications to common Korean given name syllables": Isn't this original research? There are statistics for romanizations of surnames, but I don't know if statistics for romanizations of given names exist. 172.56.232.72 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, another valid point about batchims being romanized identically even under strict Revised Romanization (RR). I somehow forgot about that! That said, I still don't think this leads to significant ambiguity for names in practice. For instance, if you encountered the name Bitna, you wouldn't likely confuse it with 빗나 or 빋나, as these aren't recognized names — 빛나 is the only common one. Similarly, Saetbyeol would be clearly understood to refer to 샛별 without any confusion; I doubt you would mistake it for 샏별, 샚별, 샒별, or 샞별!

Therefore, confusion only arises if an individual has a preference that modifies the romanization of the name further, as per the examples you've already given.

The challenge is we don't know if the person has used a modification or not, if we are presented with a name from an English-language source.

But for just referencing purposes, per this RfC, if we are dealing with Korean-language sources that don't provide a romanization, and we state that the names should always be transliterated strictly (apart from obvious mods to the family name - Kim, Lee, etc.), I can't think of a situation that would cause ambiguity or mandate Hangul. If an author is known to have a WP:COMMONNAME or a personal preference for Romanization, we could include this in square brackets [ ] in the reference. I've updated a section of the draft MOS that speaks to an issue just like this, as listed on the style sheet from JKS.

I've also removed the modifications for given names from the draft for now too... I agree that they would need to be well-sourced if we were to include explicit recommendations, if any. Need to give this area more thought. Nonabelian (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation that would cause ambiguity or mandate Hangul. What about the given name "Yedam" in strict RR/MR? Is it originally 예담? The answer is yes and no (예닮).

If including the original hangul name is not going to be mandated, then at least there should be a note saying that strict application of RR or MR does not ensure perfect reversibility. 172.56.232.61 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

References

References