Talk:Goryeosa

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Requested move 20 July 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Goryeosa be renamed and moved to Koryŏsa.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Goryeosa → Koryŏsa – WP:COMMONNAME (ngram) and WP:NCKO (this is a pre-1945 concept, so McCune–Reischauer is preferred. This is a secondary argument to common name, either way) 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the usage, and WP:NCKO notwithstanding, McCune–Reischauer is not used much for pre-1945 topics (nb Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, Balhae, Goryeo and Joseon, all in RR). — AjaxSmack 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with MR not being used much for pre-1945 topics. English-language academic literature on pre-1945 Korea overwhelmingly uses MR; style guidelines for most major journals mandate the use of MR. You're pointing to Wikipedia articles, but precedent isn't everything.

WP:NCKO and MOS:KO have been pretty behind the curve for a long time, and are often poorly followed. I've been spearheading a number of changes to both; I've got a queue of proposals in mind, one of which is on the naming of Goguryeo, Baekje, etc. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm suggesting that ngram is missing out on spellings used in academic journals. Basically every paper about pre-modern Korea uses MR; that overwhelmingly suggests common name. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – WP:NCKO specifies pre-1945 names that should be romanized using MR. Goryeosa is not a name of a person and therefore, it doesn't apply. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the manual of style for Korea-related articles. If you wish to standardize the romanization of Korean words and phrases using MR, you are free to address this issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean), reach a consensus, and update the naming convention accordingly. Motjustescribe (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arghhg this is another issue with WP:NCKO though. "Names" in that header is vague, it lists scope as more than just people names; it says "Personal, organization, and company names". Does that include works or is it strictly limited to people, organizations, and companies?

The reason I'm criticizing NCKO here is because people are trying to point to a standard that's poorly written and defined. Yes, I'm going to propose changes and will get consensus. I've already been doing so (I'm one of the IP users on the talk page) 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that it is poorly written, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. Adopting McCune-Reischauer for everything pre-1945 won't solve all the problems because there is continuity between premodern and modern names. For example, Chŏnju during the Joseon (or Chosŏn) dynasty is still Jeonju—just romanized differently. The fact that the Koreas are divided doesn't help either, as they use different romanization systems. So Korean romanization is divided diachronically and synchronically.

Anyway, the cart shouldn't come before the horse, and these decisions should be in keeping with applicable guideline and policy (see WP:RMCIDC#Determining consensus). I suggest this move request be closed without moving and be reopened once the naming convention has been updated. Motjustescribe (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]