Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles/Archive 1

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

Previous Naming conventions discussions

please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) for previous exciting discussions. Appleby 01:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with WP:UE

As there's currently a conflict of this guildeine with Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English), I have requested to add an exception clause there at its talk page. Please raise your opinion and suggestions. — Instantnood 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about the title of this book

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/archives/tomjerryanime3.jpg = What is the title of this book? I want to add the title to the Tom and Jerry and Minky Momo articles - I also would like the Korean characters for the title and the transcribing of them in RR and MR. EDIT: klutzy revealed an English-language title: "Magical Princess Minky & Tom & Jerry" WhisperToMe 06:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go... Hangul = 요술공주 밍키 / 톰과 제리; Hangul with Hanja = 妖術公主 밍키 / 톰과 제리; RR: Yosul Gongju Mingki / Tom gwa Jeri; MR: Yosul Kongju Mingk'i / T'om kwa Cheri -- Calcwatch 07:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :) WhisperToMe 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Reasons to Include Hanja for Person's Names and Place Names

  • 1. To assist in disambiguation of names
  • 2. To assist persons who may be more familiar with Chinese or Japanese to follow the names in an article
  • 3. To facilitate scholarship

Doc Rock 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort keys for categories

There does not appear to be a guideline for how to set sort keys when categorizing South Korean sub-categories within general categories. The two options are:

I prefer the second option in that I usually think of "Korea" first when searching for a South Korean subcategory while "South" is an afterthought. It also has the side effect of having general Korean, South Korean, and North Korean subcategories close together in the category list. On the other hand, it may confuse readers if searching by "South Korea" is more common.

Standardizing the sort key order is probably a good idea so that people aren't not confused when South Korean categories appear in either "K" or "S" apparently at random (same goes for North Korean categories). What does everyone think the standard sort order should be? YooChung 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Korea, South" (and of course "Korea, North"), for the reasons you have given. -- Visviva 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

I favor Korea, South or better yet, Korea, Republic(the most accurate). North Korea would be Korea, Democratic People's Republic, or Korea, North. I think those two are more suitable for readers because when there is a alphabetical list of countries, readers can just search for Korea and choose from either ROK or DPRK which are right next to eachother. Cydevil 13:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I love both of the alternatives. (Wikimachine 13:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Why not Republic of Korea (ROK), I like that alternative the best. Good friend100 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category sort keys do not appear as text and are only used for sorting pages and subcategories within categories. It determines which letter it appears under (the first letter of the sort key) and determines the order in the list. So there's no difference between using "Korea, South" and "Korea, North" and using "Korea, Republic of" and "Korea, Democratic People's Republic" (unless another Korea appears), and the former is shorter. I don't like "Republic of Korea", since it would take me a while to think to search under R, and even longer to think of searching under D for North Korea. This might just be me, however. YooChung 05:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More people seem to prefer to have "Korea" come first in the sort key, so I will write out that "Korea, South" and "Korea, North" should be the standard category sort key in the manual, unless anyone raises a serious objection. I will specify "South" instead of "Republic of" because 1) sort keys are not visible, so there's no difference, 2) everything else uses "South Korea" and "North Korea", so a change should be a matter of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) rather than the manual style, and 3) "Korea, North" and "Korea, South" are a lot faster to type than "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of" and "Korea, Republic of" (and I keep on omitting the "of"s and forgetting what the D stands for ...). YooChung 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a categorization section for the style manual. YooChung 10:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates & Calendars

I'm working on some articles related to the Imjin War and have encountered a confusing mess where calendar and date usage is concerned. Rarely is the calendar being used noted (Japanese lunar, Julian or Gregorian). It would be very helpful to non-specialist editors (like me) to have some consensus guidelines on what system to use (and during what periods), how to present the preferred calendar and note the corresponding date in another system (where sources may often employ the latter), and some notion of how to convert from one to the other. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be addressed. I would suggest using solar (Gregorian) dates throughout, with lunar dates and regnal years in parentheses or footnotes if appropriate. Also, the MoS should point out that *if* lunar dates are mentioned, they should absolutely never use solar month names -- i.e., that the 10th lunar month is simply the "tenth lunar month," not "October." Although perhaps there is a more appropriate MoS subpage on which to address that particular issue. -- Visviva 07:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have to follow Revised Romanization of Korean?

Why does Wikipedia have to follow Revised Romanization of Korean? RRoK is not that well-known romanization. McCune-Reischauer is the most well-known Korean romanization system. Thus we should use M-R Romanization system instead of RRoK. --­ (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold and italic Hangul characters

Should bold or italic type be used for Hangul characters? --88.78.227.239 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Move proposal

See Talk:Ume#Requested move. Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mountains sharing a name

I am currently expanding the List of mountains in Korea page and would like advice on how to treat mountains sharing a name. Many Korean mountains in different parts of the country use the same name. It seems to me that if XXsan is in both Gyeonggi-do and Gangwon-do then we should be titling these articles (or future articles) XXsan, Gyeonggi-do and XXsan, Gangwon-do. That is, we should use a comma to separate the mountain's name and the province's name. Some articles indicate the province with brackets instead, like this: XXsan (Gyeonggi-do). Is there an accepted standard? If not, can we make one? Waygugin (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the answer even if I don't like it. Waygugin (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kong Soo Do Bu and Kwon Bop Bu or "Boo"

It is my understanding that the "Bu" often placed at the end of Kwon Bop Bu or Kong Soo Do Bu (sometimes spelled "boo") is simply the/a Korean term for "club." So Kong Su Do Bu just means "Kong Soo Do Club" or "Karate-do club." I think some people mistakenly think that Kwon Bop Bu is the name of a martial art. Kwon Bop is the martial art (I believe it to be roughly the Korean equivalent of "Kung Fu" or "Chuan Fa," the latter meaning "Fist Method." so Kwon Bop Bu just means "Kung Fu Club" - Though true Korean speakers (i.e., true Koreans) may correct me about the exact translation of "Kwon Bop," I believe I am correct about the "Bu" part. In the Jidokwan article, we learn that the Jidokwan was originally named the Choson Yun Mu Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu, or the Choson Yun Mu Kwon Kwon Bop Bu, or sometimes the Choson Yun Mu Kwan Kong Soo Do, Kwon Bop Bu. The Choson Yun Moo Kwan was a Yudo (Korean Judo) school in Seoul. "Choson" is a term for Korea, taken from the Choson or Joeson Dynasty. I believe that in North Korea (aka Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK), the country is still referred to as "Choson." I do not know if this is the case in South Korea (aka Republic of Korea). In any case, the "Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu" is the name of a Karate-do club started it up in a Judo school. "Korea Yun Moo Kwan (Judo School) Karate-do Club." Bear in mind I'm just an American practitioner who has done a little reading, but I CAN read. Naturally, I would be much obliged if anyone (who really knows) would be kind enough to correct me where I am mistaken. My intent is simply to clear up confusion about the use of the term "Bu"/"Boo" and the tendency to confuse it with part of the name of a martial art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katotheother (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lang template

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Other languages, this part of the MoS should advise editors to wrap non-English text in {{Lang}}. How should we word that, in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Korean baseball players in US

  • Should WP:MOSKO make any statement about handling surname order? For example surname 차승백 or 백차승 ? okay it's obvious to anyone familiar with baseball, but what about in cases where it isn't? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS should not enforce a house citation style

@Kkj11210: Per WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. This is an almost-universally accepted standard (or, rather, universally accepted refusal to set a standard). The current wording of this MOS page, on the other hand, appears to have been set by no more than one or at most two users, without any regard for how the community would view this.

The wording you just restored is in very explicit violation of CITESTYLE, and does not make much sense to boot. External reliable sources in English, when they cite sources written in Korean, never give parenthetical hangul spellings of those sources' authors' names -- why on earth should English Wikipedia do otherwise? Giving the names of the authors (but not necessarily the books/articles!) in Korean text does not help Korean-proficient readers identify the sources.

Again, I know this was added unilaterally without much care, and has never been treated to as much scrutiny as I paid it when I removed it, because this style guideline contains English grammatical mistakes! "than add the Hangul spelling in parenthesis" is terrible English, and the following sentence is redundant as "hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized" should be covered in the romanization guideline, and the romanization guideline on this page already is a copy-paste of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean).

But none of this matters, as the section is a gross violation of CITESTYLE and should be removed on that basis alone, rather than copy-edited to remove the grammatical errors and redundancies.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kkj11210: Furthermore (and this didn't occur to me until now) this guideline is supposed to be for articles on Korean topics, but the section you restored appears to be about the entirely unrelated issue of sources written in Korean. Why is this related to MOS:KOREA? Korean-language sources can be cited in any article on any topic, not necessarily having anything to do with Korea, and articles in any language, not just English and Korean, can be cited in articles on Korean topics. Does the standard you propose for citing Korean sources only apply to such sources when they are cited in Korea-related articles? This doesn't make any sense. Please explain yourself, because I am jumping through a lot of hoops to assume you are not just trying to troll me as revenge for my romanization proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Notice how it's stated as an 'example' and not a particular enforcement of any style - and maybe we should focus on one change at a time? KJ Discuss? 08:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kkj11210: No, nowhere is anything stated as an "example" in a manner that allows alternatives. The "for instance" refers to the specific example of a ref formatted the way this page tells people they should format refs. How can you explain the blatantly imperative "If the author's name is in Korean, write the English romanization than add the Hangul spelling in parenthesis. For the English spellings, follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized."? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty indifferent to whether this section is kept or not. The section intended to suggest that sources should be cited with rough English translations so that non-Korean speakers can get a grasp of the sources (given some Korean sources are cited entirely in Korean) but if you think the guideline promotes a single citation style to the degree it outweighs the benefits, then its removal is fine with me. KJ Discuss? 10:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the section looks to me more like it is saying the opposite: "Please provide Korean text when citing sources written in Korean." This seems like the better reading, since users who cite sourcing giving only the Korean text are more than likely doing a rough copy-paste job, and recommending in MOS that they also provide English is probably not going to affect them because they were already ignoring MOS in the first place. It is more likely to be interpreted as saying that even though English-language RSs when they cite Korean sources almost never give the Korean text of those sources' titles/authors, on English Wikipedia this is how such sources should be cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC wording?

So now that all but one contributor agrees that the wording of the MOS needs to change in some manner, and there seems to be general agreement that a second RFC is the way to go, how should the question be worded? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This thread is for crafting an RFC question. Discussion of other matters is off-topic and unhelpful.
All but one disagrees with Hijiri88, this is the best summary of the actual consensus. By the way, it is not too difficult to see that ㅝ (as in 원) is a diphthong, made with two vowels, romanized as wo (as in won), while ㅗ and ㅓ are two different vowels, used in different syllables (as in 호명역) and romanized respectively as "o" and "eo" where the "o" is the main symbol and "e" is an inline diacritic symbol (leading to Homyeong Stn). This is the same process used in German to deal with these umlauts that cannot be suppressed (see schon/schön), but are replaced using a diacritical "e", leading to schoen. What to do with people misunderstanding this "e" as a full vowel or as a silent one ? Teaching them, perhaps. Pldx1 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that "inline diacritic symbol" appears to be yet another instance of an original hapldx1 legomenon that is not used elsewhere. the letter "e" is the letter "e". I understand that it has a unique function in Korean RR, as does everyone else who has commented on this discussion. The problem is that almost none of en.wiki's readership is aware of this unique function because it is, well, unique. (Or maybe it isn't unique -- but it is certainly unfamiliar to me and probably to most English speakers.) Teaching" our readers how to read Korean RR in every single article is an absurd suggestion. The largely-unrelated user conduct issues surrounding the above comment are under discussion at ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If there is another RfC can it include North Korean articles? I tried to raise the issue above, but didn't get much response.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: Unfortunately not. The proposal is only for pre-1945 topics, so "North Korea" and "South Korea" are both outside its scope. I'm not entirely sure what you would want it to cover, though: could you elaborate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to change "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea" to "Use the DPRK's official variant for topics about North Korea".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's practically the exact opposite of my proposal, in that (1) it relates specifically to post-1945 Korea, (2) it would be a move away from common usage and towards the 'official' system of some modern Korean state, (3) it would be a move away from MR specifically, (4) I wouldn't support it, per (2), (5) I doubt the other users who take my side in the two previous threads would support it, for the same reason, (6) I wouldn't specifically oppose it, though, because it would likely not affect my edits per (1), and (7) while Pldx1 and possibly Gulangyu would likely oppose your proposal as well as mine, their reasoning would be different.
For these reasons, merging the two proposals would make the issue even cloudier than it has apparently already become. You should wait, or perhaps open a separate discussion below.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You made a proposal, it was supported by one user, and opposed by another. This happened almost half a year ago. There is no logical reason for merging an unpopular proposal with a more popular one when the two have no relation to eachother. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed off-topic discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As usual, User:Hijiri88 is really quick for impersonating other people. I am not opposed to using the NK romanization for NK topics, on the contrary. This is a simple acknowledgment of the actual present division of Korea (and is the present status quo). On the contrary, it would be amusing to have rule stating that "Jeongjo Street is called after King Chongjo" (the street is now in SK, while Yi San was a guy of the ancient times). Pldx1 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I never impersonated you, or anyone else. You keep bringing up North Korea in this discussion -- why is that, if not that you think I am trying to push some North Korean POV? No one else has even mentioned North Korea! Anyway, the "amusing" situation you describe applies equally to the current wording as long as the modern namesake is in North Korea. Your arguments simply don't make any sense. And, once again, you are just being disruptive by making arguments like this in a section about how to word the RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: And if you ping me one more time, I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

One RM does not overrule a unanimous RFC

@Gulangyu: If you know how we can get more participation in the discussion, then please elaborate. The RFC was (almost) unanimous in support for the change. the current wording was never supported by a consensus discussion, so (as I noted on Talk:Baekje) it would have technically been acceptable to make the change without any other participants, as the older wording you have restored was crafted unilaterally by a user apparently no longer active on Wikipedia. The above RFC is to the best of my knowledge the only time this has ever been discussed, and the Baekje RM is not enough to overrule it (especially given that most participants actually agreed with the change at least in theory). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Timmyshin and User:Ajaxsmack, who opposed the RM but would I'm sure not agree with Gulangyu's misrepresentation of their arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Repinging User:AjaxSmack, whose name I misspelt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am a Korean speaker in South Korea. I am pretty sure that RR is the de facto standard for transliteration. Some old names are used in MR, but sometimes old MR words are not consistent and has exceptions. That's the reason Korean speakers welcomed relatively warmly and accepted the new romanization scheme. Your proposal to apply different rules according to the certain date is too arbitrary and I can't agree upon it. Some names seem to be used later on after the adoption of RR, because the name is too much wide spread. I think such cases could be considered as exceptions and the burden of proof would be on your shoulder. So I am entirely happy with the current MoS to apply RR for Korean romanization. --Cheol (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ryuch: You had a full month to respond to the RFC -- why didn't you? Anyway, you are wrong that RR is "the de facto standard for transliteration". If you mean "in the real world", then you should cite external sources; it seems (per the ngrams, sources specifically addressing Korean romanization, hit-counts in American university domain names, etc.) like the vast majority of sources discussing the vast majority of historical topics prefer MR to RR. If you mean "on Wikipedia", then you are wrong; no "standard" has ever been broadly enforced, and RMs are rare (I wouldn't be surprised if the recent Paekche one was the first ever). I wrote the article Chinese influence on Korean culture well over a month ago and no one has told me I should have converted all the spellings to RR (my sources all used MR). Anyway, I am becoming very skeptical about the ability or willingness of Koreans living in Korea to analyze English-language sources' romanization preferences; if Korean schoolchildren are anything like the Japanese children I teach (and the Japanese adults I used to translate for), then I would guess most Koreans are quite comfortable making up RR spellings for words they always write one way in Korean, with no regard for how the words are actually spelled in English-language reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no rule that says that an RFC overrides an RM. It all depends on participation and strength of opinion. Of the current top three histories of Korea, Kyung Moon Hwang and Michael Seth use MR, while Daniel Tutor uses RR. Who switches romanization systems in 1945? Nobody! It's a pure "invented here" solution. The Joseon article has experienced a series of RMs over the years, and there appears to a strong consensus for retaining the current (RR) spelling. Gulangyu (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start by saying the Joseon article is a poorly-written, barely-sourced, messy, POV nightmare of an article, and using it as a gold standard against which all Korean articles should be measured is a terrible, terrible idea. Further, there only appear to have been four RMs over its history: the first and second received no input whatsoever after the OP's comment; the third was closed as "no consensus", and the fourth resulted in a move to the current title; but none of the RMs were about romanization -- they were about whether the word "Dynasty" should be in the title.
Second: Using RR for modern South Korea is not ideal, but is a concession made for elements that prefer it, and "modern South Korea" is the only topic area where external sources largely prefer RR over MR. If you like, I could change my proposed wording to say that all articles on all topics related to both Koreas should use MR, but this would not be in line with external reliable sources.
There are of course no hard and fast "rules" about how to implement changes to the MOS. However, changes to policies and guidelines should be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant policies and guidelines, not on the talk pages of random articles covered by the policies and guidelines in question. WP:PROPOSAL is the closest we have to a "rule", and that says that you should "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page" if you want to make a change; it doesn't mention anything about reverting changes that have already been discussed because a discussion on an article talk page tilted slightly in the other direction. Anyway, only two users (you and Ryuch) in the RM were actually arguing that we should use RR across the board; one of the other "opposes" was an inane nonsense post by the same guy who (apparently?) opposed the RFC and another was actually in favour of the change in theory but wanted consistency to be enforced more thoroughly and quickly than I advocated. (This was actually the same view expressed by the only "support" !vote other than my own.) Even if we add the RM participants to the RFC participants, that's still a large majority in favour of the change (as I count, three against, seven in favour). The previous wording of the guideline was never discussed or supported by consensus, and was apparently based on an accurate reading of the "de facto" standard on Wikipedia articles about Korean topics -- however, this was without regard for the fact that most of those articles on Korean topics were poorly written to begin with and (to this day) need massive cleanup efforts. If we are going to enforce a standard across the board, it should be based on discussion by as large a segment of the Wikipedia community as possible, and based on English-language reliable sources, not ROK government guidelines.
I would be happy to disregard the previous RFC and open another one, making whatever changes you would like to how it is conducted and advertised. Maybe you could tell me how I could have made you aware of the RFC sooner? Are you not a member of WikiProject Korea? Where else should I have posted about it?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I wonder how you selected your "top three histories of Korea"; it seems you found two books that are well-regarded histories written by scholars (the two that use MR) and then scoured Amazon trying to find some "equivalent" that used RR and came across the first book written by journalist at The Economist whose highest academic qualification seems to be an MBA (i.e., he's not a scholar). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've copied comments by User:SMcCandlish from a move request at Talk:Baekje § Post-closure comments to post them here:

  • I think this sort of issue needs to be discussed at WT:MOSKOREA, not re-re-re-legislated at article after article. Some talking points:
    1. Do something consistent for South Korean topics; do something consistent for North Korean topics; do something consistent for topics relating to historical Korea before the SK/NK split.
    2. It would arguably be preferable for all three to be consistent with each other, but the reasons for using different systems for one or more of these topic ranges may be compelling. Arguably, they are, or the MOS:KOREA guideline would not have settled on them. But, of course, consensus can change, if the reasoning and facts convince enough of us that they should.
    3. Any source-attested style that is not obscure/obsolete (from the standpoint of modern, English-language reliable sources) should be permissible as the NK, SK and historical-Korea choices (or for all three, should they all be made cross-consistent). We simply should not make one up out of nowhere, or use one that has been rejected by the real world.
    4. WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy (cf. WP:COMMONSTYLE for details). It is not and never is the case that we must follow any particular style because it is the most common style. Otherwise, all of MoS could simply be replaced with the sentence "Wikipedia follows the Associated Press Stylebook", since that is numerically the most commonly used set of style recommendations (and this would bea stupid and terrible idea, because WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, and is not written in news style). The MoS (including its subpages like MOS:KOREA) are based on editorial consensus on what styles are best for WP's purposes and audience, informed by but not beholden to off-WP, paper style guides, especially academic and non-fiction book publishing ones, not those for other registers of usage, like journalism, business/marketing, blogging, fiction, topic-specific academic journals, etc. In short, MoS is general-audience, cross-national (to the extent possible), and semi-formal.
    5. However, this Baekje versus Paekche sort of case isn't entirely a style matter, but blends into what the most common name is in English-language sources, not just how it is styled. That is, an argument can be made that Baekje and Paekche are not really the same name for English-speakers' purposes. And counterarguments can be made against that position. Both sides can have a rational basis; people prioritize differently, not being robots. Ergo, no one should be a "hard-liner" about this matter in either direction.
    6. Conclusion: Let the WP:COMMONSENSE meta-policy guide us.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would add that a combination of move requests and MOS discussions can be used to determine the preferred style; this could and probably should take time if there is a major change such as this. Also note WP:TITLECHANGES: " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." Articles such as Goguryeo and Joseon have used RR in their titles for over a decade so great care should be taken if these titles are to be changed. I agree that "one RM does not overrule a unanimous RFC" in general but WP:RM discussions based on policy definitely trump MOS guidelines in regard to the specific article in question. In addition, the discussion at Talk:Baekje seems to show that the said ill-subscribed RfC was on weak footing to begin with. —  AjaxSmack  14:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any change at all at MOS:KOREA, just advocating a commonse-sense and consistency approach, based in correct not off-base policy interpretation, in discussions about MOS:KOREA, whether is should change, how to apply it, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: @SMcCandlish: I agree with pretty much everything the two of you have said, except that I am advocating for a change to the MOS, and I am a bit less careful about proposing large-scale changes to the two named articles, as they have both arguably only survived under their current titles for so long because no one has been paying any attention to them over the past ten years.
I am also still taking suggestions about how to organize a future RFC better than the last one -- what do you both think about leaving notes on the talk pages of prominent articles that would be affected so as to catch talk page watchers who don't watch the MOS talk page?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the proper way to resolve this issue is a combined Joseon and Goguryeo requested move. Those are the two most visible articles that would be effected. They are both currently at RR titles, and neither title seems to be terribly controversial. The MOS could be adjusted to conform to whatever the RM result was. My understanding is that Korean studies is moving slowly but surely from MR to RR. MR depends on diacritics that only a narrow scholarly community can be bothered with. The diacritics are not part of Korean, so we won't have Korean nationalists fixing diacritic mistakes in the way Europeans police European diacritics. Gulangyu (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gulangyu: But you just reverted the change to the MOS. Proposing a move of an article away from the current MOS as a method of reevaluating the MOS itself is very strange, and I don't see why you would think Goguryeo is more visible than, say, Baekje, or Goryeo. Wouldn't it be better to just reopen the RFC, and post notifications on the talk pages of those (and perhaps other) articles, explaining how the change would affect the articles in question ("Under the proposed amendment to the MOS, this page would likely be moved to the title Paekche", etc.)?
Your understanding is noted, but can you provide a source that says Korean studies is moving toward RR? I would be open to the idea (I was actually surprised to find this not the case when I started reading more about Korea in the last few months), but so far all the evidence appears to indicate otherwise. I provided a recent (2010) source that simply refers to MR as "the standard method", and no soirces contradicting this have been found. There has been an increase in overall usage of RR in English-language books and newspapers about modern South Korea since RR was introduced, but this is apparently not the case for historical topics (unreliable sources like tourist guidebooks might use RR across the board, but no one gets their information about the kingdom of Baekje from a tourist guidebook).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's an inappropriate scope reversal. Changing policy is absolutely not the role of RM; ensuring article titles comply with MoS, WP:AT, etc., is. If the concern is that not enough people would participate in the RfC if it were hosted here, then host it at the main WT:MOS talk page, or even at WP:Village pump (policy) (or, probably best, split the difference and host it at the MoS talk page and notify VPPOL of the RfC). It would be WP:CANVASSING to neutrally notify talk pages of articles that could be affected, within reason. A few prominent ones are probably sufficient, along with WikiProject Korea, WikiProject North Korea, WikiProject Korean Military History, WikiProject Korean Arts, WikiProject Asia, WikiProject East Asia, WikiProject History, and WikiProject Linguistics.

I have no issue with the question being raised, or with Hijiri88's response immediately above mine. Examining what the sourcing is for current style in Korean studies could tell us whether such an RfC is necessary in the first place. Not being steeped in the background of the underlying question, I don't have an opinion on RR vs. MR on their own terms, just a general follow-the-sources view, moderated by the fact that if the sources disagree we should go with mainstream expectations in English. This has been a problem at Chinese articles as well, where people want to move articles like Lao Tzu and tai Chi (tai chi chuan), which are WP:RECOGNIZABLE to anyone who has ever heard of these topics, to the "official" way of spelling them in modern academic transliterations, which are not recognizable to anyone but academics and maybe current students of Chinese as a second language, if these programs are shifting toward spellings like "Laozi" and "tàijí" or "tàijí quán".
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I just noticed that, apparently, the wording as originally placed here was copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), so posting on that talk page might also be a good idea. See here and here. The user who did the job was indeffed almost a decade ago, and virtually no one involved in the crafting is still around, but it would seem there was just as little discussion back then as there was in the RFC last month. Someone should correct me if I'm missing something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Oh, I missed that one. Yes, its talk page should be notified as well, but this should probably still be RfCed at the main MoS page, since it will be about the style we use generally (e.g. in article leads and elsewhere), not just in article titles. The naming conventions pages derive their stle advice from MoS, not vie-versa. Another problem with hosting it at the NC talk page is that hardly anyone watches that page, so we'd be right back in the same boat as an RfC on this page not getting enough input.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Having taken the time to read over these discussions and thinking this over, I must say I'm in support with Hijiri's position. He has presented persuasive arguments that haven't been refuted yet. Of course there are reasons to keep the status quo, and I very much appreciate Gulangyu's concerns about diacritics, but I don't buy the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" argument. The situation here is the system IS broke, and having to move a large number of pages is NOT reason to not implement changes.
SMcCandlish has mentioned Chinese romanizations, so a few words here: while on the surface Wade-Giles vs. Pinyin is comparable to MR vs. RR, there are major differences: 1) Pinyin has been adopted by the United Nations as an International Standard, I'm afraid RR hasn't; 2) Taiwan has recently adopted pinyin while North Korea hasn't adopted RR (notice also that some Taiwanese historical topics on en.wiki do not use pinyin, e.g. Kingdom of Tungning, although this might change), and 3) to add to what Hijiri said about RS, Britannica uses pinyin for historical subjects about China but MR for historical subjects about Korea (see e.g. Paekche). Timmyshin (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Britannica uses McCune–Reischauer, period. See Pusan. We should follow their example and have a single Romanization standard as well. I don't think we're going to move Busan back to Pusan, but, hey, good luck to anyone who wants to try. The MOS should reflect the actual practices of the project. Gulangyu (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gulangyu: So, you are in favour of imposing a single standard for romanizing Korean, and moving Pyongyang to Pyeongyang? Good luck to you too. More importantly, though, now that Gulangyu has admitted to being in favour of amending MOS and disapproving of the current status quo, can we find anyone who actively prefers the current wording? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOT Britannica, however. We're stylistically a little more flexible, and there does seem to be a loose consensus to use multiple romanization systems sometimes, especially to reflect source usage and to avoid anacronisms, like referring to "18th-century Beijing", or "British-colonial Mumbai". Same principle probably applies here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Timmyshin, thanks for the notes. I agree with you, though I don't think whether something is "broke" or not is really even the issue, whether someone might try to take that stance or not. Neither WP:DONTFIX nor WP:NOTBROKE, which reference that saying, are policies or guidelines, and neither are even relevant to the issue here. There's no consensus on Wikipedia for an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach at all; quite the contrary: The entire basis of the project is incremental improvement. The WP community stance is more "if it'a ain't perfect, keep working on it." That said, there is a general consensus that "solutions in search of problems" should be avoided (see, e.g. WP:CREEP), so the question is whether there's any actual problem here. You, me, Hijiri88, and others have clearly identified one. As for the Wade-Giles comparison, I was not trying to suggest a 1:1 correspondence, just a general similarities of issues and rationales in the Wikipedia context, especially using anachronistic modernisms for historical topics, and using a style that the majority of readers unfamiliar or loosely familiar with a topic will find confusing or jarring (WP is not written with experts in mind, and the expert can already understand and recognize both transliterations). There's a little bit of a tension between a) people very familiar with North Korea somewhat expecting one transliteration, and those steeped in SK topics expecting the other; and b) users not expert in either topic being confused by inconsistent romanization (especially problematic when reading articles that cover the same places, events, people, etc. on both sides of the modern border). I have to think that the latter group, of non-experts, vastly outnumbers both NK and SK experts combined, so I have leaned a bit toward normalizing to one modern transliteration system, and using an older one only for historical topics were it would be confusing to use a modern re-stylings, but avoiding a NK/SK romanization split. I'm opened to being convinced the split should be retained and enforced, but that might be a matter for RfC pro-and-con discussion, if we conclude an RfC is needed and consensus can't just be reached by continued discussion here. Anyway, I don't think I have much more input to give, unless an RfC starts. 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Although I admit that the evidence and argument used by User:Hijiri88 is sound, my inclination is to continue with the status quo; i.e. use RR for South Korean / Pre-division topics and MR for North Korean. I outline my thoughts below, with some issues that must be addressed regardless of the outcome of the proposal.
Firstly, there's no disputing the evidence that McCune–Reischauer is the most frequently-used romanization system for words in the Korean language. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, 'For English speakers the most popular transcription is that of the McCune-Reischauer system (source).' The Library of Congress uses MR in its general practices to romanize Korean (source), and'the McCune-Reischauer romanization system... is used for standard romanization library catalogs in North America (1) according to the University of Chicago. A quick survey of American universities seems to support this assertion, as shown by the University of Chicago (1), Cornell University (2), University of California, Los Angeles (3), and the University of Pittsburgh (4). The only instance I could find of a major institution using Revised Romanization was the United States Board on Geographic Names and Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use deciding to use RR for its BGN/PCGN romanization with an agreement made in 2011 (source). Combined with Hijiri88's research given in the last section, there seems to be decisive evidence that MR is generally preferred, at least to RR.
Secondly, while there seems to be some discussion on deciding on the course of action based on titles of popular articles such as Joseon and Goguryeo, such concerns are only tangentially related to this topic. Discussions on article titles will probably revolve around WP:COMMONNAME, and decisions arising from that cannot be used to discuss which system is preferable to the other. If a decision on an article title is made for a subject which does not have WP:COMMONNAME, such a decision will need to be based on a generalized decision concerning the system to be used. In short, this discussion must precede any decisions concerning article titles, not the other way around.
However, there are problems with the proposal of using the MR system. While MR is the most popular system, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the MR system itself. As the University of Pittsburgh points out, the system used by the Library of Congress is a deviation of the MR system (4) which sets certain rules to solve ambiguities. The University of Toronto further demonstrates (5), there are at least two variations of the MR system (original and 2009), and a decision to use a particular variant will be somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, I am inclined to agree with an editorial of The Korea Times, which states that 'MR became unacceptable because the Romanized words using MR not only deviated from proper Korean sounds but also changed Korean words to either different words or just plain gibberish (Chung 2012).'
Such concerns have led me to be inclined to keep the status quo in using RR for pre-division Korea and the current South Korea. While MR is more widely used in general, it must be noted that Yale romanization, a third type of romanization, is preferred by 'many linguists (source),' implying that 'academics use this variation more' argument is flawed to some degree. Furthermore, I believe RR is a better variation for Wikipedia. As the National Institute of the Korean Language notes, RR does not use any letters besides the latin alphabet (source). On this note, I am inclined to agree with Chung (2012) that 'MR distorts Korean sounds or renders them meaningless when the diacritics are dropped because this is done by most English speakers who use the standard QWERTY keyboard.' Adding to this point, as most readers on the English Wikipedia are non-academics, it will be difficult to assume they can understand the diacritics used in the MR system, implying that RR will be an easier system to understand. While MR is preferred for topics related to North Korea, (presumably) due to certain considerations, I am inclined to continue with the status quo of using RR. My last appeal will be to WP:COMMONSENSE, that using RR makes more sense in general for Wikipedia. KJ Discuss? 15:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kkj11210: I actually agree with you completely with regard to MR frequently leading to Korean words being butchered, but the problem with that way of thinking with regard to Wikipedia's MOS (as opposed to road signs, newspapers, etc.) is that it assumes people will be going out of their way to misspell words because they "don't like" the breves, even though we can safely assume that reliable sources don't. Chung 2012 is explicit; if you read closely, Chung is talking exclusively about how RR is superior to MR in a lot of modern real-world contexts because of keyboards sometimes making diacritics difficult to input, but the Wikipedia editing interface eliminates this problem. You can check my record on this, as Japanese has the same problem -- in Hepburn romanization if you leave out the much-maligned (on Wikipedia) macrons it can lead to gibberish misspellings that accurately represent the wrong Japanese word, and between 2012 and 2015 I was active in keeping that from becoming a problem (I even saw two users get community-banned for issues arising out of their deliberately removing macrons). If you want to argue that depending on their OS, their browsing encoding, etc., some of our readers might see squares instead of the proper spellings, then that is a conversation I am willing to have, but I'd need to consult some more tech-savvy editors first, as for whatever reason I have never encountered such problems myself. (Note that I have had the problem of the Chinese pinyin caron looking like a macron, leading to some rather embarassing mistakes, so if it was standard operating procedure to write the MOS so as to avoid diacritics that are difficult to input and might display poorly, then surely MOS:CHINA would be a worse offender than the version of MOS:KOREA that favours MR.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: See also the cleansing with fire of the fake "WikiProject English", a canvassing farm against diacritics. The days when the anti-diacritics pundits had any hope of gaining consensus are long over. Their last bastion was in sports topics, trying to rely on the idea that because various sports governing bodies jingoistically can't be bothered to spell athlete's names correctly, that this means not only is WP not obligated to do so, it obligated to follow those sources as if they were the only or most reliable sources (a form of the WP:Specialized-style fallacy). This argument was defeated, because of course sports organizations are the most reliable source for things like player rankings and team sanctioning and playoff schedules, but they are not reliable at all for linguistic or human nomenclatural matters.

Anyway, Kkj11210 (to address your comments above and below, where it turned into a bit of a mess of back-and-forth and then a outdent), if we're going to use MR in some contexts, and there's a version of it that's more accurate/precise/distinguishing because of diacritics and other tweaks, we should of course use that system, and use it correctly; there's nothing "arbitrary" about that choice. I'm going to remain essentially neutral on the MR vs. RR debate, and simply oppose Yale for now, because what linguists prefer in their journals has no relation to what people in general are going to recognize. In general, I lean toward disfavoring a NK/SK spelling split on WP, but support retaining older romanizations of proper names when it comes to historical, pre-communism topics, as we do elsewhere, which Chinese, Indian, etc. names. If we have to use multiple systems, let it be temporal divide only, not a temporal one commingled with socio-political fight (must less a three-way mess with ivory-tower academic preferences in the mix, too). As a final note, we could take the same approach taken with Traditional and Simplified Chinese, and just provide both when they differ (at least on first occurrence). That would obviate most in-prose conflict, and leave nothing but an article titles issue, which could be settled either with a consistent standard, or just following a numeric WP:COMMONNAME analysis on a case-by-case basis, and living with inconsistent results. As long as the lead was clear about the different spellings, it might not matter much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: At this point, we're basically deciding which style will be more appropriate for Wikipedia, so let me list the reasons for supporting RR over MR for the pre-division articles:
Problems with MR: 1. There are multiple variants of MR, which implies that choosing one variant is at least arbitary, and there is a very real possibility of editors confusing and mixing different styles, even with WP:AGF. 2. MR includes diacritics, implying that: a) it is more difficult to type than RR, especially using the QWERTY keyboard, and unintentional omission often result in gibberish (Chung 2012) b) 'English today does not use diacritics (marks added to letters that affect their sounds) except in words still regarded as foreign (such as naïve, façade, and fête – and even these are often spelled without diacritics, especially in SMS and emails) (Millward and Hayes 2011, A Biography of the English Language:231);' implying that the average English speaker cannot be expected to fluently read diacritics used in MR c) There may be technical problems in displaying MR, and there has been at least one recorded error of Internet Explorer failing to display diacritics. Note that 2(b) must be ignored for romanizations of languages when an alternative romanization is not present, but that's not the case here.
How RR addresses the problems: 1. There is only one version of RR, the one endorsed by the South Korean government. 2. RR does not include diacritics, so that a) it is easier to type, b) English readers will have a relatively easier type in trying to read them c) there will be no technical problems in displaying RR, assuming that the reader's browser can display the Latin alphabet.
Some considerations: 1. As mentioned in my previous comment, 'academics prefer a style' cannot be a valid argument. 2. Adding to this, 'a style is more common' is not valid since the question is which format is more appropriate for Wikipedia, and the common usage should be given weight when the usage of one style is so overwhelming as to leave most readers unfamiliar with the proposed style, which is clearly not the case. 3. The romanization of other languages cannot serve as a precedent as is, since this discussion only concerns the romanization of the Korean language and factors that decided other romanizations may not be present with the Korean language.
In short, I guess the ad hoc criterion I'm proposing for this problem is that 'a style must be preferred over the other if and only if 1) there are no major variations within the style that may lead to confusion 2) the style must be in relatively common use and 3) the style must be readable and understandable to most readers of the English Wikipedia. KJ Discuss? 10:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, RR (which includes a lot of "e"s that aren't pronounced as "e"s and are only legible to people with a degree of training in Korean) certainly fails criterion 3, and the only reason RR kinda-sorta fails criterion 1 is that, when it comes to criterion 2, it outshines RR by so much that a lot of the sources that use it are allergic to diacritics, and simply leave out the breves (but such variants are still easier for English speakers to accurately read than RR). Milward and Hayes, in the quote you provide, actually support use of diacritics in this case, as we are talking about romanizations of foreign words, mostly proper nouns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Please note that the criterion are not supposed to be used to decide whether a romanization system is appropriate for the language, but rather how one particular system compares to the other ones. In response to your comments: 3 supports RR since most Wikipedia readers cannot be expected to understand diacritics, and if Chung (2012) is correct in stating that 'Korean language is notorious in euphonic and other sound changes when written words are spoken; MR is just as difficult as RR in Romanizing Korean words,' then in general RR should be easier to read at the very least, given that it's based on the Latin alphabet. Moreover, the variations aren't based on the breves, with the example of the revised system used by the Library of Congress (as evidenced by the examples in the powerpoint given in this source from the University of Chicago), so I have no idea what that assertion is based on. Secondly, your assertion that MR 'outshines RR by so much' when it comes to criterion 2 is unfounded; the University of Pittsburgh describes MR as 'One of the two most widely used Korean language romanization systems, along with the Revised Romanization of Korean source,' and while I did agree that MR is more often use, the balance does not seem to be skewed to the point that criterion 2 is given entirely to MR; and the criterion only concerns 'relatively common use' to establish an adequate degree of familiarity, so MR cannot be outweighed by RR. Moreover, 'but such variants are still easier for English speakers to accurately read than RR' is also unfounded - a source is preferred, but it's pretty WP:COMMONSENSE that English speakers, who are not used to diacritics, cannot read MR more accurately than RR. Lastly, Milward and Hayes weren't talking about the romanizations of foreign words, but rather words in English that were perceived to be 'borrowed' from other languages, as in the examples given above - their evidence can only be used here to establish that most English readers are unfamiliar with diacritics, which seems reasonable. What basis is there for arguing that MR is more appropriate for Wikipedia than RR? KJ Discuss? 10:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've already spent two months answering your last question. It is obvious that the vast majority of MR variations are based on the omission of diacritics, and Chung actually agrees, as that is the core of Chung's argument. It's also pretty obvious that RR, when read aloud by the average reader of en.wiki, would create much worse renderings of the correct Korean readings than even the most mangled MR variant. Think about it: the only places MR uses diacritics (which can be omitted with the disastrous effects Chung describes) are places that RR inserts an illegible e that no one without training could have a hope of pronouncing accurately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Your entire argument for the past two months seems to be based on the fact that 'English-language reliable sources discussing topics such as Korean Buddhism, Korean literature and Korean history prior to the Japanese occupation (or even the Korean War) still tend to use McCune–Reischauer' which I replied to by stating that 'Adding to this, 'a style is more common' is not valid since the question is which format is more appropriate for Wikipedia, and the common usage should be given weight when the usage of one style is so overwhelming as to leave most readers unfamiliar with the proposed style, which is clearly not the case.' Moreover, I don't find it 'obvious that the vast majority of MR variations are based on the omission of diacritics,' in light of the evidence given above, or 'pretty obvious that RR, when read aloud by the average reader of en.wiki, would create much worse renderings of the correct Korean readings than even the most mangled MR variant' with my considerations on diacritics, and 'the only places MR uses diacritics (which can be omitted with the disastrous effects Chung describes) are places that RR inserts an illegible e' is pretty absurd. From MOS:KO, Taekwondo is romanized as Taegwondo (RR) or T'aegwŏndo (MR); where's the insertion of the illegible e? KJ Discuss? 12:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing my work for me. I would have honestly been too lazy to go and dig up variants of RR, but it would seem that "Taegwondo (RR)" is what happens when someone removes the illegible "e" from "Taegweondo" (which is attested here and here) in an attempt to make RR more palatable to English-speakers. I am sure some reason other than someone having consciously removed the "e" to make it more readable can be given, but the fact is that now we have located two variant spellings of the same word in RR, whatever the reason for these variants. I contend that most English-speakers seeing "T'aegwŏndo" would be unlikely to read the "ŏ" incorrectly, but (unless they already knew the word) they would almost certainly try to pronounce the "e" in "Taegweondo" and make a dog's dinner of the word.
It is obvious that the majority of variants of MR spellings came about because of people leaving out the breves (and sometimes the apostrophes). This failure of MR to account for modern keyboards, and thus creating ambiguous spellings that (supposedly) butcher Korean by making distinct words look the same, is the principal complaint your original source (Chung) has about MR.
I am not sure why MR continues to be preferred by almost everyone except the ROK government -- I think it might be the "e"s strangely added in order to distinguish ㅓ from ㅗ and ㅡ from ㅜ, when this distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with any sound that in English would typically be represented by the letter "e" -- but them's the facts. More external reliable sources prefer MR to RR, so a really good reason should be provided for doing otherwise, and so far all of your reasons have been contradicting each other. RR doesn't have variants and RR is easier for English-speakers to read, but RR contains elements that English-speakers find inconvenient and so are on occasion left out, creating variants. The fact is that all the problems you have presented with MR apply equally, and most like more so, to RR.
So why not just go with the one that the best-quality English-language sources all recommend?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, it's my fault for not saying anything earlier, but stop pinging me. I suspect that part of the reason for the lack of interest in the RFC was my long-windedness, and this thread is already massive. I've said my piece, and I suspect you have as well, so we should both just be quiet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but before I stay quiet, I'll just point out the errors in your last comment. Also, what's wrong with a massive thread? We should try to reach WP:CON by discussing all relevant points if we can.
First of all, taegwondo is the right RR according to the format outlined by the National Institute of the Korean Language as seen here; there are no established variants in RR, unlike MR which has at least two variants that can be considered to be 'official.' Any deviations from the established guideline could be attributed to individual error for RR, but that's not true for MR since there are several versions that could be considered 'official.'
Second of all, it is not obvious that the variants came about from 'people leaving out the breves.' I doubt that the Library of Congress's preferred variant of MR, which clarifies romanized words when there are 'Conflict between Romanization Rule and Pronunciation,' 'Hyphens,' ' ㄴ and ㄹ,' and 'Medial ㅅ' (source, just to name the first four clarifications) came about because some people decided to leave out breves. It seems more like a systematic attempt to clarify the system than variations created due to reasons exclusively concerned with breves
Lastly, putting aside the fact that some groups do prefer RR to MR (cf. BGN/PCGN romanization), how do my reasons contradict each other? 'RR contains elements that English-speakers find inconvenient and so are on occasion left out, creating variants' is false as shown above, and 'the problems you have presented with MR apply equally, and most like more so, to RR' cannot be construed as true even under the most liberal interpretations - please refer to my comments under 'How RR addresses the problems' of MR. Given my comments (esp. second comment with lists), I find it difficult to see how RR cannot be seen as the most appropriate form of romanization. Again, even if MR is used more often, is it because MR is better? or is it because using MR is just following the common trend? All we can do is to find the right style for Wikipedia KJ Discuss? 13:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Huh. You managed to find an instance where the officially sanctioned form of RR has an obscure allowance for a character normally transcribed as "eo" to be written as "o"; but it is obscure enough that Korean universities' official websites misspell it as "eo".
Sorry, I thought you meant variant spellings of words written in MR, not systematic variations on MR itself. Why can we not just use some variation of MR that is prominently used in a large number of external reliable sources, like how MOS:JAPAN explicitly recommends Modified Hepburn.
And if I know the Wikipedia community, I think saying things like "Again, even if MR is used more often, is it because MR is better? or is it because using MR is just following the common trend? All we can do is to find the right style for Wikipedia" will not win you a lot of arguments. People around here like their guidelines to be based on popular usage in high-quality English language sources, and speculating about some grand conspiracy to preserve the status quo does no one any good.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

How in the world does RR have 'an obscure allowance for a character normally transcribed as "eo" to be written as "o"'? If you're talking about the character 'ㅝ,' it's always transcribed as wo (source) such that 권 will always be transcribed as gwon (or kwon, but that's hardly a notable variant). As I mentioned in my last comment, any differences of romanization (with other words as well) can only be ascribed to human error since there is an established system.

Moreover, I don't remember arguing that we can't use a particular variant of MR. To quote my second comment, 'There are multiple variants of MR, which implies that choosing one variant is at least arbitary, and there is a very real possibility of editors confusing and mixing different styles, even with WP:AGF (emphasis added).' We can choose a particular style, but I didn't think we could have adequate reasons to prefer a particular variant of a particular style.

And 'speculating about some grand conspiracy' sounds exactly like something I would do after all the research I've done to establish evidence and corresponding problems - in context, it's corresponding to your statement that 'I am not sure why MR continues to be preferred by almost everyone except the ROK government' by suggesting that MR might be used because the trend is to use MR in most writings. My statement at the end was intended to establish that the purpose of the discussion should be to find the right variation to be used on Wikipedia, not discuss which variant more oft-used in general. It was (supposed to be) my closing statement.

In any case, I really don't see why MR should be preferred over RR. I don't think the concerns I brought up were or can be adequately addressed, and my second comment explains my preference for RR. KJ Discuss? 13:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to "ㅓ", which is in every other combination is transcribed "eo" but when coming after "ㅜ" the two are transcribed as "wo" rather than as "ueo". But this clearly is not widely understood, as the websites linked above demonstrate in their spelling it "taegweondo". Anyway, I'm not really that familiar with it, but can you explain the spellings Bichunmoo and its lead actress Kim Hee-sun? But this (read: transcribing "ㅓ" as "u" rather than either "eo" or "o") looks a lot more like a variant of RR than MR. Your overemphasis on "official" variations seems arbitrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course! According to the infobox at each article, Bichunmoo should be romanized in RR as Bicheonmu and Kim Hee-sun should be romanized as Gim Hui-seon in RR. However, it's unlikely that the article titles were decided according to RR - there's an infobox stating the romanization after all. I think it might be plausible that both are titled according to their WP:COMMONNAME, the first article according to IMBD and the second according to 1. 2, 3, and 4. In short, they're not variants of RR, just WP:COMMONNAME KJ Discuss? 22:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand me: I'm not talking about why our articles have the titles "Bichunmoo" and "Kim Hee-sun"; I talking about why "ㅓ" can be romanized as either "eo" or "u" in what looks like an otherwise RR framework.
Is this actually a third, more obscure romanization system with which I am not familiar? Or is there some grammatical reason why the "ㅓ" in these two proper names is pronounced differently than other "ㅓ"s and so is romanized differently under RR (in which case the "RR" spellings given in the infoboxes are wrong)? Or is it a misprint that happened to occur, apparently indepently, in two separate but adjacent places? Or is this actually a variant of RR in which "ㅓ" is romanized as "u" rather than as "eo"? I actually don't know what the answer is myself, but I don't need to: since you are the one claiming we should be using RR because it doesn't have any variants, then the burden is on you to prove that these apparent variations that look like variants are in fact something else.
And don't say "It doesn't matter, because the titles of those articles were determined by different criteria" -- you are claiming that the choice of one variant of MR over another would be arbitrary, so you need to demonstrate that your choice of one variant of RR over another is not arbitrary.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, your finding one example of a word (taekwondo) that when transcribed in MR uses a diacritic and when transcribed in RR does not (usually) use a barely-legible "e" does not discount the fact that the vast majority of instances where MR uses diacritics would involve a barely-legible "e" when transcribed in RR. Don't try to deny this. You have already tried, and failed, to dodge it by drawing attention to an exception (the only exception?) to this rule. The only places where MR uses diacritics are places where, diacritics or no, MR is still significantly easier for English-speakers to read than RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88, you're trying too hard to find 'variations' in RR which does not exist. The inboxes are clear on that point for both subjects. According to the National Institute of the Korean Language, 'ㅓ' is always romanized as eo (source) taking into account the systematized exceptions present here. If you're asking why the subjects have those particular names in English, then I don't know. Only the people who coined the romanized terms can tell you that. However, it's unreasonable to claim both of their names as 'variants' of RR as their names do not follow any systematic deviation from RR. Each of their respective inboxes make clear that there is a RR romanization for the subjects, and the name that's used is simply the English WP:COMMONNAME. There are no variants in RR. There is one system in RR, and romanized terms that do not fit the RR system is possibly individual error or names which are allowed under rule 3 section 7 seen here. Noting terms which are romanized terms used in English that does not follow either system and then claiming they represent a systematic variation in RR is unreasonable at best.
Moreover, if you see a term that's romanized in RR, you would know what RR system it uses - the only one that exists, which is outlined in the National Institute of the Korean language. Needless to say, this doesn't hold for MR - which was my point all along. For the MR romanizations which are present with both subjects, could you easily identify which official variant of MR it's using? The original? The Congress-revised one? Or some other systematic variant which is accepted? Show me the sources which demonstrate your allegation thus far that RR has the same problem by documenting systematic variations.
Also, I apologize if I accidentally represented by example as an exception. As I implied, my example was simply the one taken from MOS:KO, but I'll gladly do more research to show that I'm not 'drawing attention to an exception (the only exception?) to this rule.' Other 'exceptions' to this rule includes Dangun, which in MR is Tan'gun but in RR it's Dangun, which doesn't show a 'barely-legible "e".' Choe Chang-ik, with MR as Ch'oe Ch'angik but RR as Choe Changik without the ble. Dongui Bogam with MR as Tongŭi pogam and RR as Dong(-)ui bogam, not involving a ble. Kimchi with MR as Kimch'i and RR as Gimchi without the ble. Cho Chikun with MR as Cho Ch'i-hun and RR as Jo Chi-hun without the ble. Hagwon with MR as Hagwŏn and RR as Hagwon without the ble. Gopchang jeongol with MR as kopch'ang chongol and RR as gopchang jeongol without the ble. And finally, the infamous Gangnam Style with MR as Kangnam sŭt'ail and RR as Gangnam seutail, with the second diacritic not involving a ble.
Similarly, the claim that 'The only places where MR uses diacritics are places where, diacritics or no, MR is still significantly easier for English-speakers to read than RR' also seems unfounded. What's the reasoning behind that statement? The fact that RR sometimes uses an extra e where MR uses a diacritic, so that makes MR 'significantly easier for English-speakers to read'? I'm pretty certain the difficulty of pronouncing MR romanized words have a similar (if not higher) level of difficulty. Besides the fact that this claim is unfounded and unsubstantiated, I already explained the reasoning behind my belief why RR should be easier to read than MR in general. Quoting myself, 'if Chung (2012) is correct in stating that 'Korean language is notorious in euphonic and other sound changes when written words are spoken; MR is just as difficult as RR in Romanizing Korean words,' then in general RR should be easier to read at the very least, given that it's based on the Latin alphabet,' an argument supported by my given evidence about diacritics.
At this point, I'm not exactly sure what your argument is. You have made demonstrably false claims such as that 'It is obvious that the majority of variants of MR spellings came about because of people leaving out the breves (and sometimes the apostrophes)' and 'the only places MR uses diacritics (which can be omitted with the disastrous effects Chung describes) are places that RR inserts an illegible e that no one without training could have a hope of pronouncing accurately,' and failed to address any of my arguments by their content (cf. concerns about MR in my second comment). I appreciated your initial argument demonstrating, with evidence, that MR was used more than RR, so that it should be the format used for pre-division articles. However, I believe I have adequately responded to any arguments based on the preference of academics or the majority, and stated several (unanswered) concerns why MR is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Your only two concerns seemed to have been that RR was more difficult for English speakers to read, which I believe I adequately responded with the discussion concerning diacritics and statements based on Chung 2012, and the second that there might be variations of the RR, which I demonstrate to be false in this comment. KJ Discuss? 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop dodging the question. You keep saying that because you say there is only one RR, and you even go so far as to cite the fact that Wikipedia's infoboxes give only one RR spelling ... even though they also give only one MR spelling! And when I give you examples of what look like variants of RR ("ㅝ" written as "weo", "ㅓ" written as "u") and ask for explanations, you just talk over me and repeat your refrain about how RR does not have variants. At this point it's becoming increasingly difficult to take this in good faith. Are you misunderstanding my questions, being deliberately evasive, or trying to push some bizarre POV that for whatever reason hinges on the kind of romanization system we use to write about pre-division Korea? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize if I came off as 'dodging the question;' I thought I gave a satisfactory answer in the last comment: 'If you're asking why the subjects have those particular names in English, then I don't know. Only the people who coined the romanized terms can tell you that.' In RR, 'ㅝ' is always written as wo and 'ㅓ' is always written as eo (while taking account of other rules in RR). Following my last comment, if the romanized word doesn't follow this format, then the romanization cannot be seen as following RR. Let me repeat this statement so it doesn't come off as 'misunderstanding my questions, being deliberately evasive, or trying to push some bizarre POV.' If the romanized word does not follow the format given, then it cannot be seen as deviations of RR. Your so-called exceptions cannot be seen as following RR. Your examples cannot be considered examples of variations of RR. RR does not have any variations (cf. MR with the original and LoC-revised system). If you're asking why the subjects are romanized with those words in particular, I can't give you an answer except to say that, however similar they may seem to RR, they are not RR or variations thereof. Quoting my last comment, 'noting terms which are romanized terms used in English that does not follow either system and then claiming they represent a systematic variation in RR is unreasonable at best.'
Also, I'm getting tired of responding to straw man arguments. When have I ever cited 'the fact that Wikipedia's infoboxes give only one RR spelling' to prove anything about RR? I used the infoboxes to 1) demonstrate that your allegations about the ble was false and 2) point out you would not know which variations of MR the infoboxes are using. And before you say the same thing about RR, let me repeat that there is only one format of RR. If you don't understand a particular point I'm making, feel free to ask for clarification. KJ Discuss? 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You keep saying the same thing. Please cite one single reliable source that says that "there is only one format of RR" or that "In RR, 'ㅝ' is always written as wo and 'ㅓ' is always written as eo" (my emphasis). It seems that you are implying that because RR is government-sanctioned then it must have a single standardized form and no one else uses variations of it for their own reasons, but with other government-sanctioned romanization systems in other languages this simply is not the case, so you need a source that actually says there are no variants of RR. You are basing your whole argument on the "fact" that there are no variants of RR, but you seem unable or unwilling to prove it. The fact that in multiple independent instances "ㅝ" is romanized "weo" and "ㅓ" is romanized "u" in an otherwise RR-framework. These look like variants to me, and you have just admitted that you "don't know" why these words are written this way.
Anyway, I'm done talking with you. It's obvious you're just interested in forcing your opinion on the MOS, and you have no external reliable sources to support this opinion. I have better things to do than keep wasting my time trying to convince you to provide sources to support your arguments.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As for you first request, I couldn't find any sources directly stating that there are no variations, but perhaps you might be persuaded by the fact that pretty much all reliable sources that talk about RR, including the National Institute of the Korean Language, the National Archives of Korea (the latter here), and Council of Science Editors only talks about the RR which was 'released by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in South Korea (source) and no sources mention any variations? Or possibly by the fact that 'these look like variants to me' cannot possibly be used as a basis in calling them variants in RR since there's absolutely no 'reliable source' that shows them as such, besides your OR?
What's the arguments being made at this point anyways? The only viable arguments for MR were that 'the majority of English speakers use them,' which I've addressed by talking about the appropriate style for Wikipedia; 'MR is easier to read' which I disputed with the discussion concerning diacritics. Attempts at counterarguments included 'RR has variations' against which I've consistently stated (and now demonstrated) that only one system exists, even though it's unlikely I can properly answer the sentiment that 'these look like variants to me;' as well as argument that 'the only places MR uses diacritics... are places that RR inserts an illegible e' and how I've 'tried, and failed, to dodge it by drawing attention to an exception (the only exception?)' which was replied to with my list of 'exception's; the argument that 'it is obvious that the vast majority of MR variations are based on the omission of diacritics' which was shown to be false with the LoC variant. As for statements alleging that I'm 'just interested in forcing your opinion on the MOS,' I would like to direct you to the list of concerns made in my second comment which were left unaddressed, straw man arguments used against me, misusing my own evidence to support a point unrelated to the evidence, as well as the list of your arguments present here which were easily disproved with the minimal amount of research - and I'm the one forcing my opinion on the MOS? I'd like to see things from your point of view, but it's a bit difficult at this point. KJ Discuss? 01:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
So, a total of three sources (you have checked) discuss RR, none in enough depth to mention one way or the other whether there are any variants, and all using the same words. Stop trying to turn this on its head. I am not saying that the existence of variants of RR is a reason we should not use RR, so I have no responsibility to prove based on reliable sources that there are variants; you are claiming that we should use RR because there are no variants, but you have just admitted that you have no evidence to actually back this up.
We are arguing over whether the MOS wording should be amended, and if so how. The fact is that the only one arguing for the status quo at this point is you. The majority of outside contributors agree with me that MOS should encourage use of MR for historical topics not specifically tied to modern South Korea. Some users think that RR should be used for topics related to Korea, including modern North Korea, and one other user appears to agree with you but at this point it's just as likely that they are only trying to troll me. You claim that you addressed my concerns about MR being easier for English-speakers to read than RR, but all the other native English-speakers here agreed with me, and the only ones who think RR is easier for English-speakers to read than MR appear to be non-native speakers of English, who frankly should not be telling me how native speakers read English.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 18 Junte 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no RS that specifically states there's no variants, but the existing evidence clearly implies this - the fact that I can't find a specific RS that doesn't say that explicit statement doesn't really demonstrate anything. 'The majority of outside contributors' refers to the RFC before my discussion, implying that the issues I've brought up haven't been considered (by anyone, really). As for accusations of trolling, you might want to consider my last comment. KJ Discuss? 09:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the discussion and feel like adding my ‎₩25 on the merits of the respective Romanizations for Wikipedia. Looking at a not-random example, Cheonggyecheon vs. Ch'ŏnggyech'ŏn for 청계천, I suppose Cheonggyecheon could end up being pronounced 체옹계체온 by someone not in the know and that Ch'ŏnggyech'ŏn might get a little closer to the Korean. But, either way, without prior knowledge of Korean, neither will be very intelligible. (Both systems use gye which comes out as 가이 (gai) from many English readers.)

What I worry is that Ch'ŏnggyech'ŏn will quickly descend into Chonggyechon. (And it will. I can see the RM comments now: "But sources typically drop the breves and apostrophes." Notice that as of this comment Ch'ŏnggyech'ŏn is a red link and Chonggyechon is not.[1]) When this happens, even those with familiarity with MR will be faced with deciding whether to say 종계존, 총계촌, 청계천 or 정계전. At least with RR you get one choice and that is enough for me. —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Pretty much everything you say is right, of course, but your last point is not really an issue, as "those with familiarity with MR" will probably also have a familiarity with hangul, and we should be working under the assumption that the article follows the other stipulations of MOS:KOREA by citing the hangul spelling somewhere. Articles that already don't follow MOS for whatever reason (COMMONNAME, or the authors being too lazy to check) won't start following the romanization part of MOS just because we amended it.
Also, your example itself is actually irrelevant, as I don't think anyone is recommending that we apply MR to modern ROK topics. I understand you are talking about the merits of one romanization system or another and so what example you chose doesn't matter to your key point, but still.
Anyway, we shouldn't write this portion of our MOS under the assumption that people won't follow the other parts of the MOS and so create ambiguous misspellings, or that it might cause the infamous diacritic wars to flare up again in a place they didn't before. As far as I can tell those wars ended a long time ago, and with relatively obscure Korean historical topics are unlikely to flare up again (especially when the sources that drop the diacritics are generally not reliable, as for pre-modern Korean literature, Buddhism, etc.).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that "'those with familiarity with MR' will probably also have a familiarity with hangul". I know many Korean area scholars, people who work with Koreans outside of Korea and non-Korean speakers who have lived or do live in Korea who are familiar with MR and/or RR and do not read hangul. (Much like people who can handle pinyin but not characters.) The nature of the specific example I gave is irrelevant. I was only discussing the relative merits of the two Romanizations when used in Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  15:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Your friends are similar to me, then. I know how to read RR and MR, but cannot generally read a sentence that has been written in hangul. I can, however, by and large tell the difference between the signs used for "o" and "ŏ" (since I know the latter is vertical and the former horizontal); the signs for "u" and "ŭ" are another matter, but if I am in an environment where I can access Wikipedia then I can also quickly look it up.
But this is actually all still irrelevant. The guideline already says that whether we use RR or MR, or a diacritic-neutered form of MR, the standard, correct forms in both systems should still be cited somewhere in the article. So concerns about the ambiguity of one style or another, or the potential of one to degenerate into an ambiguous mess, should not be driving this discussion. We should not be saying that "If people don't follow the MOS then the articles will have problems, and they might potentially face more problems under the proposed amendment than under the current wording." If editors are ignoring the MOS, then they will continue to ignore the MOS whether it is amended or not.
The proposed amendment would fix at least one of the problems caused by people ignoring the MOS, though: any pages that are moved from RR spellings to MR spellings would then automatically have a redirect from their RR spellings (at present an abundance of topics cannot be easily located by readers searching for the RR spellings of their names, as SMcCandlish pointed out in the RFC).
Of course, this is also irrelevant. Arguments on both sides that are based on the (indiputable) fact that at present, and probably still for the foreseeable future, hardly any but the very best articles on Korean topics actually follow the MOS and that this creates problems for readers are not of much good for determining how the MOS should be written.
Objectively, MR is easier for native speakers of English to read than RR is, and the only user who has disagreed with this is a native speaker of Korean who apparently heard somewhere that since English doesn't have an abundance diacritics, then any romanization system that uses diacritics is inherently more difficult than one that doesn't, regardless of all other factors. RR is also the most commonly used system in English-language sources discussing topics relevant to pre-1945 Korean culture.
Discounting Pldx1's (continued?) insinuation that I am a North Korean spy, I haven't actually seen an argument against the change that wasn't based on "yeah, but then it might be ambiguous if editors ignore everything else in the MOS and start carelessly leaving out the diacritics and apostrophes, and neglect to include the hangul and variant/correct romanizations".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I am a native English speaker and don't think either system is objectively easier to read. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Random86 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Also for the record, MR 'is extremely difficult to use due in part to the many sound changes that take place in the Korean language. . . A common surname has the following renditions: Lee, Li, Ree, Rhee, Yee, and Yi. Even more confusing is Dok Rip Shin Moon (title of an old newspaper) which is the same as Tongnip sinmun (Harrison 1994, Guide to processing Chinese, Japanese and Korean serials, quoted in Kim 2006),'
Moreover, according to Kim (2006, Romanization in Cataloging of Korean Materials), 'the MR system throws catalogers and users into much confusion,' with the fact that the 'MR system also has the problem of transliterating proper nouns such as geographical names,' 'the MR system is an inconsistent scheme for bibliographic records because Korean has several local dialect,' also with the concern that 'If there is no proper language supporting software, characters with diacritics cannot be displayed properly,' 'word division is also a problem in using the MR romanizing scheme.' Survey of university students show the result that 'the MR system was not found to be very effective in romanizing search terms, because terms romanized using MR rarely matched the users’ intuitive spellings' leading to the conclusion that 'The results of analyzing information-seeking behaviors show that the MR system and ALA-LC rules are not comprehensive or user-friendly' while 'The new system (RR) does not employ special diacritics such as breves and apostrophes, eliminating confusion when users search for information and view the results' and 'The new scheme also reduces some confusion created by the distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants.'KJ Discuss? 22:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kkj11210: Please try to understand me (and User:Timmyshin, User:SMcCandlish, etc.) when I say that your arguing over whether MR is "better" or "worse" than MR based on sources that happen to be critical of MR is irrelevant to the discussion. You have already indicated that you are unable to explain why, despite these criticisms, English-language sources on pre-division Korea almost universally prefer MR. The fact that this (English-language sources on pre-division Korea almost universally preferring MR) is the case, on the other hand, is an excellent argument for altering the current wording of the MOS.
Please refrain from engaging in debates about the merits and demerits of different romanization, as this is outside of the scope of the discussion. We should be using the system most recognizable to our readers, and most widely-used in English-language reliable sources.
This system is MR. End of story.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Please refer to my comments arguing that whichever sources are preferred more really shouldn't be a decisive criterion for English - and maybe consider the fact that 'you can't explain why MR is used more' isn't really an argument for MR either. And consider that we are discussing the merits of different styles, at least in the context of using them in articles. Also, maybe WP:CON? KJ Discuss? 08:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The single most important argument for or against a romanization system is how widely-used and/or recognizable it is. If you seriously don't get this at this point, you should probably be TBANned from MOS -- does it need to come to that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We already discussed this earlier - RR is recognizable enough so that English readers wont have a problem recognizing it - and our discussion should center which style of romanization should fit Wikipedia's style better. Also, in my earlier comment, you'll notice that the academic article was discussing whether library categorization should use MR or RR, so are relevant points to consider (and shouldn't be dismissed by categorizing it ad an argument 'for' RR). Again, if your only argument at this point is that MR is used more, a fact which I've repatedly agreed with, then I still fail to see why that should be the decisive factor. If RR is better for Wikipedia, as my comments and the aforementioned study suggest, then RR should be used. A non-overwhelming preference doesnt make a decisive argument. Please give me one non-anecdotal argument why MR should be used instead of RR, given that 'the MR system throws catalogers and users into much confusion.' KJ Discuss? 09:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Kkj I'm very impressed by your research and sound arguments in favor of RR; I must admit they are convincing. But let's not forget our discussion is about "historical topics" and all arguments about linguistics are probably secondary. For all the advantages RR confers, it's a romanization system strictly tied to the modern state of South Korea, and from what I can see virtually ALL of the English-language books or journal articles on Korean history that use RR originate from South Korea, a country that speaks no English for the most part. Is there any proof that English-speaking historians on Korean history not in South Korea use RR? This is my main concern. Also see my argument below. Timmyshin (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion has gone astray into a linguistic discourse about the superiority of each system — which is irrelevant to the issue at heart. It is my belief that Wikipedia should reflect culture and not drive culture as being argued here. Will RR replace MR as the most popular romanization one day? Possibly, but before that realizes, we should adopt the system that IS the most popular in academia, which is admittedly MR. As for "which" MR system to use, I don't think it's an arbitrary decision at all — which Korean history book uses the Library of Congress (2009 revised) system? Yes, misusing diacritics and apostrophes is concerning, but I don't think being prone to misuse is a convincing argument against it; after all Vietnamese articles on en.wp all work without problems with (much more) diacritics, as do other Asian articles featuring non-QWERTY characters (Japanese ō, Chinese ü). Timmyshin (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Timmyshin: Again, you are right about just about everything. I don't think you are going to convince the others where I have failed, though. So how about we just try to get some more outside opinions by opening a new RFC? I opened a section immediately below so as to collaborate on crafting the wording for the RFC question. It would be way out of line for me to do it unilaterally. I thought my last RFC wording was fine, but apparently something was wrong with how I promoted it, and perhaps I was missing a flaw in the wording itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think your last RFC wording is the issue, problems with subjects like this has always been level of participation, although I fear participation will be even less after the long and technical linguistic discourse above. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to try RMs on Joseon, Goryeo and Goguryeo as proposed by Gulangyu. Timmyshin (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Please don't fuck with me and create a redirect now. Wait a couple of days, anyway.

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization

Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles/Archive_1&oldid=1180083895"