Revision as of 22:38, 25 July 2006 editAppleby (talk | contribs)7,234 edits archive old topics← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:43, 25 July 2006 edit undoAppleby (talk | contribs)7,234 edits refactor a bitNext edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
::Isn't "should be romanized '''I'''" clear enough? I'm fine with ''Yi'' in articles and ''I'' within its box, but any ''Yi''s really shouldn't be called "McCune-Reischauer". Once we start to deviate from the 1930's MR guidelines and start to do what's the most common way to do something, we'd also run into all sorts of hyphenation / spacing issues. I strongly support Visviva's suggestion to use the hyphen only to separate administrative divisions and do away with the LOC's rules about spacing, hyphenation and using two different ' marks. The LOC guidelines simply aren't MR, and I think we should keep that separation at the WP. I won't change any ''Yi''s yet, but I'd like to hear from any supporters of ''Yi''. ] | ::Isn't "should be romanized '''I'''" clear enough? I'm fine with ''Yi'' in articles and ''I'' within its box, but any ''Yi''s really shouldn't be called "McCune-Reischauer". Once we start to deviate from the 1930's MR guidelines and start to do what's the most common way to do something, we'd also run into all sorts of hyphenation / spacing issues. I strongly support Visviva's suggestion to use the hyphen only to separate administrative divisions and do away with the LOC's rules about spacing, hyphenation and using two different ' marks. The LOC guidelines simply aren't MR, and I think we should keep that separation at the WP. I won't change any ''Yi''s yet, but I'd like to hear from any supporters of ''Yi''. ] | ||
== |
=== Last names === | ||
''This discussion has been moved to ].'' -- ] 03:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | == Korean names of provinces == | ||
⚫ | Hi! I made this suggestion a few minutes ago on the German wikipedia. Why are the names of the provinces not written the korean way? For example ] instead of ]. I guess, most provinces of other countries are written in the original way, for example ]. Outside of the Misplaced Pages, the complete Korean names are also more common, at least according to this . What do you think? | ||
⚫ | * South Korea: North Chungcheong -> Chungcheongbuk-do, South Chungcheong -> Chungcheongnam-do, Gangwon -> Gangwon-do, Gyeonggi -> Gyeonggi-do, North Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangnam-do, Jeju -> Jeju-do, North Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do, South Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do, | ||
⚫ | * North Korea: Chagang -> Chagang-do, North Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-pukto, South Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-namdo, North Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-pukto, South Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-namdo, Kangwon -> Kangwon-do, North Pyongan -> Pyongan-pukto, South Pyongan -> Pyongan-namdo, Ryanggang -> Ryanggang-do | ||
⚫ | -- ] 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :Agreed. I've hardly ever heard anybody use the English (or even German) translated name. buk/nam-do seems to be as common as it is official. – ] 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | ::South Korea is done. -- ] 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
== Last names == | |||
There are certain last names which are seldom romanized according to RR, even in texts which otherwise follow RR religiously. For that reason, I propose to adopt the following conventions for the '''family names''' of individuals who have no defined official/preferred romanization. As I see it, this falls under the general rubric of ]. | There are certain last names which are seldom romanized according to RR, even in texts which otherwise follow RR religiously. For that reason, I propose to adopt the following conventions for the '''family names''' of individuals who have no defined official/preferred romanization. As I see it, this falls under the general rubric of ]. | ||
Line 94: | Line 76: | ||
::OK, let's keep it to Kim, Pak and Yi, with standardized romanization for the others (including Choe). -- ] 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | ::OK, let's keep it to Kim, Pak and Yi, with standardized romanization for the others (including Choe). -- ] 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | === Admiral Yi is Korean === | ||
⚫ | ==province update== | ||
⚫ | Could we drop the "Yi" in "Yi Sun-sin" for Admiral ]. Yi is used more for Chinese names and it sounds like Admiral Yi is Chinese to people outside Misplaced Pages, which he is '''not'''. | ||
⚫ | I think we should drop "Yi" completely and use "Lee" or even "E" (since "E" "이" is the Korean pronounciation. ] 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :it's not easy to solve, especially considering the wider implications for all the various korean surnames for historical figures. Bak or Park? Sin or Shin? Gim or Kim? An or Ahn? we need a consistent system. | ||
⚫ | :wouldn't Lee also sound possibly chinese? i think with both rr and mr systems, it would be romanized simply "i". that looks pretty awkward, and many people would pronounce it "eye". so the question is what is the most common english spelling for historical korean figures with that name (excluding modern people because they can make personal choices of their own name spelling)? i think visviva's point above was that Yi is pretty common, as a compromise considering accurate pronunciation, non-awkwardness, and actual common usage. do you have any other evidence to consider (scholarly references, even google search)? ] 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | == Korean names of provinces == | ||
⚫ | Hi! I made this suggestion a few minutes ago on the German wikipedia. Why are the names of the provinces not written the korean way? For example ] instead of ]. I guess, most provinces of other countries are written in the original way, for example ]. Outside of the Misplaced Pages, the complete Korean names are also more common, at least according to this . What do you think? | ||
⚫ | * South Korea: North Chungcheong -> Chungcheongbuk-do, South Chungcheong -> Chungcheongnam-do, Gangwon -> Gangwon-do, Gyeonggi -> Gyeonggi-do, North Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangnam-do, Jeju -> Jeju-do, North Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do, South Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do, | ||
⚫ | * North Korea: Chagang -> Chagang-do, North Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-pukto, South Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-namdo, North Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-pukto, South Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-namdo, Kangwon -> Kangwon-do, North Pyongan -> Pyongan-pukto, South Pyongan -> Pyongan-namdo, Ryanggang -> Ryanggang-do | ||
⚫ | -- ] 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :Agreed. I've hardly ever heard anybody use the English (or even German) translated name. buk/nam-do seems to be as common as it is official. – ] 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | ::South Korea is done. -- ] 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | ===province update=== | ||
] 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)] | ] 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)] | ||
we need to update the province name guidelines: "South Jeolla" (current guideline) or "Jeollanam-do" (actual article title)? ] 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | we need to update the province name guidelines: "South Jeolla" (current guideline) or "Jeollanam-do" (actual article title)? ] 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 176: | Line 181: | ||
::Thanks for the notice. ] 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | ::Thanks for the notice. ] 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | == Admiral Yi is Korean == | ||
⚫ | Could we drop the "Yi" in "Yi Sun-sin" for Admiral ]. Yi is used more for Chinese names and it sounds like Admiral Yi is Chinese to people outside Misplaced Pages, which he is '''not'''. | ||
⚫ | I think we should drop "Yi" completely and use "Lee" or even "E" (since "E" "이" is the Korean pronounciation. ] 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :it's not easy to solve, especially considering the wider implications for all the various korean surnames for historical figures. Bak or Park? Sin or Shin? Gim or Kim? An or Ahn? we need a consistent system. | ||
⚫ | :wouldn't Lee also sound possibly chinese? i think with both rr and mr systems, it would be romanized simply "i". that looks pretty awkward, and many people would pronounce it "eye". so the question is what is the most common english spelling for historical korean figures with that name (excluding modern people because they can make personal choices of their own name spelling)? i think visviva's point above was that Yi is pretty common, as a compromise considering accurate pronunciation, non-awkwardness, and actual common usage. do you have any other evidence to consider (scholarly references, even google search)? ] 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:43, 25 July 2006
Template:Korean requires
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.
|hangul=
parameter.
Previous discussions:
Hyphen use
Forgive me that I am so picky and bored as to read through the M-R and RR guidelines, but in both schemes, such names as Hallasan and Kŭmgangsan really shouldn't have hyphens in them... Should those be changed to match guidelines too? Please do respond if you have any comment, because I am quite worried to change the above si/shi combinations already with no support/opposition, and I am not an expert! (I think I will leave alone mixing the use of ʻ (aspirated consonants) and ʼ (separating syllables that may be confused), because that may really be going too far...)
I promise when my summer holidays here in Sydney ends in a few days, I won't have time to be so picky... until July :-) -- KittySaturn 05:43, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
- I'm pro-hyphen. Hyphens disambiguate syllable boundaries, and provide valuable information to non-speakers of Korean. Of course, in the case of Hallasan and Geumgangsan, there isn't much to disambiguate. But even there, hyphens do clarify the internal structure of the name somewhat. Visviva 16:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever. Important is to have redirects for the other versions. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)
Just a note that the North Korean government use Mt. X on Naenara, whilst the South Korean tourist board use Mt. Xsan (no hyphens). Well, I've engaged Google:
Name Xsan X-san Mt X Mt Xsan Mt X-san Halla 6080 4390 4270 736 76 Jiri 6500 648 1170 395 7 Chiri 522 436 556 151 7 Sorak 4020 828 4530 389 9 Seorak 9060 1040 1820 4900 1 Kumgang 840 750 8920 75 251 Geumgang 752 259 4130 317 102 Baekdu 8110 102 626 281 8 Baektu 29 3 16 5 0 Paektu 691 3420 5700 85 4 Myohyang 459 223 511 17 3 Kuwol 839 590 518 4 0
Kokiri 2 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
- Template:Korean mountain names may be useful in figuring out which redirects to add. (I've already covered most of Category:Mountains of North Korea. Oh, and I've mellowed on hyphens. I just can't manage to care anymore. -- Visviva 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
McCune-Reischauer: Yi or I?
User:Mr Tan's adjustment of the name table for Sunjong of Korea leads me to bring this matter here. The question is: in the name table, should the MR for 이 (family name) be rendered as Yi or I? Mccune-reischauer.org suggests I, and I can't find anything to contradict that. For that reason, I had been changing Yi to I whenever I ran across it.
Yi for 이 is common usage, but then again so is "Woo" for 우 and the aforementioned "Shi" for 시, neither of which belong in a name table. Can anyone find a reason to prefer Yi?
In any case, this shouldn't affect the way we spell names in articles, since Yi is the spelling preferred by most 이s who are not Lees. -- Visviva 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As you know, there are three main files on the MR site that guide our transliterations. The 1939 file seems to allow it, while explicitly prohibiting Ri and Li (p. 52):
- "Another very important example is 李, the surname of the kings of the last Korean dynasty and still a very common Korean surname. Actually it is pronounced in the standard dialect and should be Romanized I, but some may prefer to retain the older Romanization, Yi, because that is already the familiar form. In any case the other Romanizations of 李, Ri and Li, should not be used."
- The 1961 seems to say nothing about it; and the Library of Congress guidelines use Yi (page 100):
- The surname 李 is always romanized Yi, no matter how it is written (李, 이, 리).
- (However I personally usually do not follow the last file; for example it prefers putting spaces even before particles, which the original 1939 formulation doesn't.) I think Yi is one of the exceptions that has stuck. And we wouldn't write the "this" 이 as yi. But in my opinion I think the surname Yi is allowable. On the other hand, 시 has never been shi in any of these three files, so there isn't much reason any more to write it as shi since South Korea developed their RR. -- KittySaturn 04:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
- Isn't "should be romanized I" clear enough? I'm fine with Yi in articles and I within its box, but any Yis really shouldn't be called "McCune-Reischauer". Once we start to deviate from the 1930's MR guidelines and start to do what's the most common way to do something, we'd also run into all sorts of hyphenation / spacing issues. I strongly support Visviva's suggestion to use the hyphen only to separate administrative divisions and do away with the LOC's rules about spacing, hyphenation and using two different ' marks. The LOC guidelines simply aren't MR, and I think we should keep that separation at the WP. I won't change any Yis yet, but I'd like to hear from any supporters of Yi. Wikipeditor
Last names
There are certain last names which are seldom romanized according to RR, even in texts which otherwise follow RR religiously. For that reason, I propose to adopt the following conventions for the family names of individuals who have no defined official/preferred romanization. As I see it, this falls under the general rubric of Misplaced Pages:Use common names.
- 김 (gim) --> Kim
- 박 (bak) --> Pak
- 이 (i) --> Yi
- 신 (sin) --> Shin (?)
- 강 (gang) --> Kang (?)
Other family names would continue to follow the Revised Romanization (or McCune-Reischauer for North Koreans).
This would mostly apply to historical figures, since most prominent living Koreans have a preferred romanization. With the possible exception of Bak Hyeokgeose, I don't think any historical Kim or Pak is commonly romanized as Gim or Bak. And no Yi is commonly romanized as I. The cases of Sin and Gang are less clear-cut; I'd be willing to see them dropped from the list, although I think Shin and Kang are reasonably prevalent spellings.
With a few exceptions, most of our Misplaced Pages articles already follow this convention. Codifying it will just help us to keep track of existing practice, and of where an existing article is likely to be located. -- Visviva 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- i agree, this should go into the guideline. do you think bak hyeokgeose should be renamed pak? i'm not sure about shin or kang, though, fewer exceptions are easier to memorize & enforce. Appleby 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's keep it to Kim, Pak and Yi, with standardized romanization for the others (including Choe). -- Visviva 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Admiral Yi is Korean
Could we drop the "Yi" in "Yi Sun-sin" for Admiral Yi Sun-sin. Yi is used more for Chinese names and it sounds like Admiral Yi is Chinese to people outside Misplaced Pages, which he is not.
I think we should drop "Yi" completely and use "Lee" or even "E" (since "E" "이" is the Korean pronounciation. Good friend100 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- it's not easy to solve, especially considering the wider implications for all the various korean surnames for historical figures. Bak or Park? Sin or Shin? Gim or Kim? An or Ahn? we need a consistent system.
- wouldn't Lee also sound possibly chinese? i think with both rr and mr systems, it would be romanized simply "i". that looks pretty awkward, and many people would pronounce it "eye". so the question is what is the most common english spelling for historical korean figures with that name (excluding modern people because they can make personal choices of their own name spelling)? i think visviva's point above was that Yi is pretty common, as a compromise considering accurate pronunciation, non-awkwardness, and actual common usage. do you have any other evidence to consider (scholarly references, even google search)? Appleby 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Korean names of provinces
Hi! I made this suggestion a few minutes ago on the German wikipedia. Why are the names of the provinces not written the korean way? For example Jeollabuk-do instead of North Jeolla. I guess, most provinces of other countries are written in the original way, for example Vest-Agder. Outside of the Misplaced Pages, the complete Korean names are also more common, at least according to this google fight. What do you think?
- South Korea: North Chungcheong -> Chungcheongbuk-do, South Chungcheong -> Chungcheongnam-do, Gangwon -> Gangwon-do, Gyeonggi -> Gyeonggi-do, North Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Gyeongsang -> Gyeongsangnam-do, Jeju -> Jeju-do, North Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do, South Jeolla -> Jeollabuk-do,
- North Korea: Chagang -> Chagang-do, North Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-pukto, South Hamgyong -> Hamgyong-namdo, North Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-pukto, South Hwanghae -> Hwanghae-namdo, Kangwon -> Kangwon-do, North Pyongan -> Pyongan-pukto, South Pyongan -> Pyongan-namdo, Ryanggang -> Ryanggang-do
-- IGEL 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've hardly ever heard anybody use the English (or even German) translated name. buk/nam-do seems to be as common as it is official. – Wikipeditor 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- South Korea is done. -- IGEL 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
province update
we need to update the province name guidelines: "South Jeolla" (current guideline) or "Jeollanam-do" (actual article title)? Appleby 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The province articles were moved after some discussion -- perhaps 6 months ago -- on the basis of Misplaced Pages:Use common names, since the "South/North X" standard was never widely used outside of Misplaced Pages. The discussion is around here somewhere, I'm not sure where. Of course, the "South/North" form could be considered to follow Misplaced Pages:Use English, so it's a bit of a tossup. In any event, the conventions and categories should be made consistent with the article titles, or vice versa. -- Visviva 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Added: The province names discussion is on this very page, currently heading #12 (soon to be archived). -- Visviva 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
ok, so i will, if nobody else wants to, update family names as above & province name to current practice. Appleby 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposed guidelines
need guidelines on mountains (Xsan, X-san, X Mountain, or Mount X?), rivers, islands, etc., which are now inconsistent. Appleby 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
the mountain/river/island thing probably needs more thought. i was surprised there isn't a definitive broader guideline, although various guideline pages make peripheral, contradictory comments. did i just miss an obvious guideline page? Appleby 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- No rush with this -- let's give it some time to play out, and post invites on the various Talk pages. I'm posting what seems to me to be the most obvious solution to each quandary; other proposals are most welcome. -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
given name
was it decided that personal names should be generally separated by a hyphen? Revised Romanization of Korean says in principle, no, but permitted. it seems a majority of existing article titles are hyphenated, even when not necessary for pronunciation disambiguation. what's the guideline? Appleby 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's been decided on principle, although we did have a discussion of the matter at some point. I tend to prefer the Xxx Yyy-zzz format for its clear declaration of syllables; however, I have to admit that the Yyyzzz version looks a little better.
- The key thing, of course, is to have redirects pointing to the article from every likely alternate spelling. But I agree that we need to hash out a consistent standard, as duplicate articles have been cropping up much too often. Perhaps, since we're using RR, we should follow the examples in the government's 용례 사전? -- Visviva 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
somebody, please, just make up our minds about default hyphenation of given names, toss a coin or something. Appleby 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
mountain
Existing practice: Varied, but tending to favor Xsan or X-san, see Category:Mountains of Korea
Tool: Template:Korean mountain names
Proposal A: Standardize to Xsan; add "Mountain" only for disambiguation (which is rarely necessary). No need to hyphenate. -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- sounds good. & consistent with Revised Romanization of Korean ("names for geographic features and artificial structures are connected to the placename: 설악산 → Seoraksan 해인사 → Haeinsa") Appleby 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest 'Mount X' form. As I said at Talk:Baekdu Mountain#article title, move requested, 'Mount X' is the most common form in English. 'X Mountain' comes next and 'X-san' is the least common. --Kusunose 08:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. For instance, "Mount Seorak" gets about 393 Google hits, while "Seoraksan" gets more than 37,000 Google hits. "Mt. Seorak" gets an impressive 12,600 Google hits, but that's still 1/3 of the total for "Seoraksan." This may vary considerably from mountain to mountain... However, the situation seems to be similar for Hallasan and Jirisan. -- Visviva 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mm. I checked "Paektusan" and "Mount Paektu" again and numbers are 11,000 and 10,300 respectively. So it seems Xsan is the most common form. --Kusunose 09:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
island
Existing practice: Varied, but tending to favor X Island for polysyllabic names and Xdo or Xdo Island for monosyllabic names (Dokdo, Jindo Island). See Category:Islands of Korea.
Proposal A: Standardize to Xdo; add "Island(s)" only for disambiguation. No need to hyphenate. Create alternate-names template. -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- sounds good, & consistent with rr guideline. Appleby 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
river
Existing practice: Favoring X River for rivers and Xcheon for streams. See Category:Rivers of Korea
Proposal A: Continue with X River, Xcheon (Xch'on); create alternate-names template. -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- i wonder why rivers are treated differently. it'd be nice to be consistent, but x river does sound more right to me, & maybe there's a reason for the existing practice? Appleby 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
temple
Existing practice: Varied, but tending to favor Xsa, see Category:Buddhist temples in South Korea (sample is skewed; many of those were created very recently)
Tool: Template:Korean temple names
Proposal A: Standardize to Xsa; add "Temple" only for disambiguation. No need to hyphenate. -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- sounds good, & consistent with rr guideline. Appleby 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
county
I propose to move the articles of form "X County" (currently almost all counties in South Korea) to the form "X," except where disambiguation is needed.
Example: Cheongdo County --> Cheongdo
The existing convention arose out of prior Misplaced Pages practice; however, it's difficult to see why we should use "X County" when we don't use "X City" -- I think the only city at "X City" is Donghae City, due to the need for a dab page at Donghae. Objections? -- Visviva 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- this is all Revised Romanization of Korean has to say: "Syllables of Korean administrative units (such as do) are separated from the placename with a hyphen: 강원도 → Gangwon-do. One may omit terms “such as 시, 군, 읍”: 평창군 → Pyeongchang-gun or Pyeongchang, 평창읍 → Pyeongchang-eup or Pyeongchang." Appleby 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- should we drop the suffixes from all but provinces? as visviva said, cities already rarely have "-si", "-eup" and -"gun" are also examples of unnecessary suffixes. or is that too minimalistic, necessating too many disambiguation exceptions? Appleby 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would favor keeping the suffixes for tertiary divisions (eup, myeon, dong) -- with obvious exceptions like Itaewon where Misplaced Pages:Use common names trumps other considerations. This is partly because of the need for disambiguation, especially for eup which double as the county seat. Also, in many cases, particularly for urban dong, there is no obvious "on-the-ground" entity which you could call by this name. I happen to live in a neighborhood called Jangjeon-dong, but I seldom hear anyone call it "Jangjeon." ... thinking about it now, I was probably wrong to put Duryu-dong at Duryu rather than Duryu-dong.
- We drop the si and gun, I think, to avoid making those names unnecessarily obscure. But most tertiary divisions are obscure (though still eminently encyclopedic), and are hardly ever referred to in English except in addresses and the like, where the suffix is almost always retained. -- Visviva 07:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Korean name
Korean name is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. Good friend100 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)