Talk:Kim Yeon-koung

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kim Yeon-Koung → Kim Yeon-Kyoung – The anglicized title of her name should include a y. It's 경 not 겅. Malleusjls (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. All of the article's sources use Kim Yeon-Koung.  If the name were Romanized systematically, it would be Gim Yeon-gyeong or Kim Yŏn-kyŏng.  "Kyoung" (쿄웅) is just as silly as "Koung" (코웅) but Koreans love non-systematic Engrish spellings for names so Wikipedia should follow this common usage.  —  AjaxSmack   17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It may not make sense linguistically, but Kim Yeon-Koung is the spelling used by the player herself, by FIVB, and one that appears on her back in all international competitions including the current London Olympics. By the way, the correct McCune-Reischauer romanization would be Kim Yŏn'gyŏng, not Kim Yŏn-kyŏng. --Iceager (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Layout
The layout of this article is completely different to rest of the English Wikipedia. This is something important because this is one of the most read vollyeball articles in the project and should be taken as a model for a casual editor to go and modify another article to look like this one. --Osplace 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)