Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive 1

Note: Material on this Talk page added before approximately 16:00 UTC, 4 March 2004 was moved here from the main article.

Hello, Korean wikipedians and non-korean wikipedians interested in Korea (both south and north).

There's also a Korean Wikipedia. http://ko.wikipedia.org &#54620;&#44397;&#50612; &#50948;&#53412;&#48177;&#44284;&#46020; &#51080;&#49845;&#45768;&#45796;. http://ko.wikipedia.org

Let's talk about various themes about Korean items in Wikipedia. Here are several themes being discussed at the same time. Please do not write your opinion just at the end of this page, but tail it in each section.

Romanization
This section shall deal mainly with how we should write the Korean names in the Latin alphabet. I've put a link to the official South Korean romanization, but firstly it's quite new (therefore there exist too many non-standard romanizations in books and the internet), and further it's only the standard of one of two Koreas.


 * See: Romaja

External link: South Korean official romanization


 * ''(4) Personal names are written by family name first, followed by a space and the given name. In principle, syllables in given names are not separated by hyphen, but the use of a hyphen between syllables is permitted.


 * e.g.
 * &#48124;&#50857;&#54616; Min Yongha (Min Yong-ha)
 * &#49569;&#45208;&#47532; Song Nari (Song Na-ri)''

Excerpt from the above link.

I think we should stick to the principle. Korean names are similar to Chinese names, and Chinese names don't use hyphens, do they? --Xaos


 * I would use hyphens when needed: Mija is okay, but Donga would be read as DON GA unless hyphenated an Dong-a. --Ed Poor
 * I agree. --Xaos


 * Xaos, this may be the official policy now (in the past, it has been different), but most people are still writing Korean names with a hyphen (a search for "Kim Dae-Jung" at Google (English language pages only) gives 53,000 hits, a search for "Kim Daejung" about 300). It is Wikipedia practice to use most common version of names in the English language. For Korean names, I'd say these include hyphens. It could be that this use changes, as with the shift of Wade-Giles to Pinyin for Chinese name (Mao Tse-tung -> Mao Zedong). Jeronimo


 * Well, whichever form ends up being used for titles (or any given title), just include a redirect from the other form so the two can peacefully co-exist. --Brion


 * Sure, that goes without saying. Jeronimo

All the English newspapers I have access to here use the hyphened form for personal names. So does the official English website for the government of Seoul. I can't tell you what the national site uses, as I can never connect. -- Stephen Gilbert 02:44 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

Some Koreans use hyphens, some don't. I don't see why we should impose anything, both ways are in use. The main thing is keeping the order of family name and first name right. As for 'official', the passport and birth certificate use two words for the first name, but Koreans don't like it. Also, we should respect the common spellings, so not write "Kim Daejung". --Kokiri


 * I agree with Kokiri: just as most people spell &#44608; as Kim, a few spell it as Gim. If we know whether a particular person prefers to use or not use a hyphen, then we should follow that person's preference.  --Sewing 01:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Issues with the SKKR
[1] Caveats. To begin with, I have never been a huge fan of the idea of "Romanizing" Korean, and still am not:


 * The practice does not help "foreigners" (i.e., non-Koreans) to better pronounce, assimilate, or understand the use of Hangul or the Korean language (&#44053;&#45224; will still be mispronounced, whether written Kangnam or Gangnam).


 * Koreans will continue to have their names brutalized by immigration officials, regardless of spellings (well, is it Bak [/b&#65533;/] or Park?)


 * Romanization ignores the fact that average Koreans still prefer Hangul on a daily basis; a practice adopted by most long-term foreign residents of Korea (representation of the spoken language is, after all, the intent of Hangul).


 * Modern technology has enabled the international usage of Hangul, and Hangul is now an available option on most, if not all, word processing programs. It only takes a few hours to become adept with the script.


 * In a democratic society, you know, like South Korea is touted as being, there is no need for an "approved" spelling method, as free people are at liberty to spell their own names as they choose. Sure, the government might want an official system, but the people themselves are under no obligation to adhere to it.


 * Similarly, it is offensive that anyone should suggest to non-Koreans how Korean words adopted into their own languages should be spelled, especially when Koreans themselves are under no such obligation (see above), and non-Koreans are not involved in determining the spellings of foreign words borrowed into Korean (e.g., the entire body of Konglish).


 * Give all these caveats, one should expect that the system for widespread use should be the one that offers the greatest utility and makes the most sense; much in the same way that Hangul established itself as the preferred spelling system. Instead, we have the personal opinions of certain "scholars" and politicians foisted on us.  Case in point, "The &#12610; is &#48512;&#49328; sounds more like a 'b' than a 'p'."  This is a common argument often touted by self-proclaimed subject-matter experts.  In truth, however, it shows a lack of research, scientific methodology, and objectivity.

Since Korean has no 'b', the question is unanswerable because "letters", while having sounds associated with them, have no sound. The determination of what a 'b' sounds like would depend on the language being spoken (Italian 'b' is different from English 'b'), in which case, the traditional use of 'b' is to indicate lenis, bilabial, obstruent sounds. The statement is true only if the basis for spelling is English; but shouldn't a Korean "Romanization" system be based on Korean?

[2]Some Rules. I believe most of these were amended to the SKKR, but if they weren't, they are good practices to follow (unless you know the reader will have non-standard pronunciation.)  They should be followed in the order given.


 * a. Final consonants become the beginning of the next syllable if that syllable begins with a vowel (syllabification). Since this creates a phonetic environment for voicing, syllabified final consonants should be written normally.
 * &#51649;&#50629; 'ji-geop' NOT 'jik-eop'


 * b. Final consonants "double up" (geminate) when followed by the same, or similar, sound.
 * &#49483;&#49548;  'se-sso' NOT 'set-so'
 * &#48531;&#51109;&#45212; 'bu-jjang-nan' NOT 'but-jang-nan' OR 'bus-jang-nan'


 * NOTE: The SKKR, when last checked, does not address "double consonants"; geminate scripting is assumed, by I see great merit (perhaps as a helpful spelling distinction?) in the following system, which I will credit Gary Rector for, at the very least, inspiring the idea.
 * &#48531;&#49692;&#45208;&#47924; 'bu-tsu-nna-mo' BUT &#48512;&#50025; 'bu-sseok'
 * &#48531;&#51109;&#45212;  'bu-tjang-nan' BUT &#48512;&#51789; 'bu-jjeok'


 * c. Final obstruents aspirate when followed by &#12622;; initial obstruents aspirate when preceded by &#12622;.
 * &#47925;&#55124; 'mu-keun' NOT 'muk-heun'
 * &#51339;&#45796; 'jo-ta' NOT 'joh-ta'


 * NOTE: I am deviating here from the SKKR because there is a glaring contradiction of logic. The McCune-Reischauer-based system of 1985 (M-R) adopted ph/th/kh/ch for &#12621;/&#12620;/&#12619;/&#12618;, of which only 'ch' remains; the others are now p/t/k (apparently a suitable replacement could not be found for 'ch').  Nevertheless, standard Korean pronunciation does produce the aspirated obstruent sounds in these environments.  If the rationale for the geminate graphs &#12611;/&#12600;/&#12594; is that this is the sound created in the environment '&#12610;+&#12610;' = &#12611;, ergo 'pp' or 'pb', the same logic should apply to aspirates; '&#12610;+&#12622;' = &#12621;, ergo 'ph'.  Some have argued that 'ph' might be pronounced /f/, but we are not speaking Greek, are we?  On the merits of this argument, shouldn't we also then spell &#51665;&#54665; 'jiphaeng' some other way, lest one mistakenly pronounce it /jifaeng/?  Until a change does occur, it's probably better to delete the 'h'.


 * d. All obstruents become 'p', 't', or 'k' according to their pronunciation (e.g., &#12610;/&#12611;/&#12621; become 'p') when they end words or are followed by another audible consonant.
 * &#45925;&#49437;  'deopseok' NOT 'deobseog'
 * &#49443;&#48520;&#47532; 'seotbulli' NOT 'seodbulli', also applies to the &#12616; and &#12613; series.
 * &#47785;&#46041;  'mokdong' NOT 'mogdong'


 * e. Obstruent sounds that precede nasals and liquids become nasals.
 * &#51077;&#45768;&#45796; 'imnida' NOT 'ipnida'


 * f. Dental nasals that precede liquids becomes liquids.
 * &#49888;&#46972; 'silla' NOT 'sinra'


 * g. Post-nasal liquids (no pun intended) become nasals.
 * &#50577;&#47549; 'yangnip' NOT 'yangrip'


 * Ex.) &#45824;&#54617;&#47196; 'daehangno' NOT 'daehakro'
 * &#46021;&#47549;&#47928; 'dongnimmun' NOT 'dogribmun'

[3] Graphing Problems.


 * a. In those dialects that pronounce digraphic Hangul vowels as diphthongs, the initial rounded vowel is often inaudible when it follows a consonant (except in careful speech), although a slight rounding of the consonant is visible. Further, some of these graphs are associated with similar sounds, c.f., &#50924;, &#50780;, and &#50812;.  The SKKR provides three separate spellings for this same sound, which all approximate /e/ when preceded by a consonant.


 * b. Along similar lines, the SKKR does not address changes in unrounded front vowels, i.e., &#51060;, &#50640;, and &#50528;, when they are part of an open or closed syllable.
 * &#44592; rhymes with "key", but &#44608; rhymes with "him"; spelled 'i'
 * &#44172; rhymes with "kay", but &#44191; rhymes with "get"; spelled 'e'
 * &#44060; rhymes with "eh" (short 'e'), but &#44079; is closer to "cat" spelled 'ae'


 * c. In transliteration, the use of digraphic vowels creates a dilemma; is 'gaeop' to be pronounced &#44032;&#50629; or &#44060;&#50741;? Sure, the second word may be nonsensical, but a non-Korean probably would not know that.  Perhaps a better illustration of this problem is &#44060;&#50629;, "opening of business or trade", which is now to be spelled 'gaeeop'.  Removing the M-R diacritics may have created some confusion between &#44032;&#50741;/&#44032;&#50629;/&#44060;&#50741;/&#44060;&#50629; for 'gaop', but it is difficult to see how the digraphic system offers a better alternative, rather than simply replacing one problem with another.


 * d. There doesn't seem to be any directive for what to do with foreign words borrowed into Korean. It's as if, once spelled in Hangul, that becomes the basis for "Romanizing" the term.  For example, rather than return &#54756;&#50612; &#46300;&#46972;&#51060;&#50612; to the original 'hair dryer' from which it was borrowed, we are more likely to encounter 'heeo deuraieo' because few dictionaries give etymological information that would indicate a foreign word.

No system will find widespread acceptance until these problems are addressed. The new system did little to correct these problems, which then brings to question the necessity of making the change. Perhaps it would be a better investment to teach non-Koreans how to read Hangul, rather than put so much time, money, and effort into a system that will probably never work properly.


 * -- Sean M. Witty, Seoul (July 2004)


 * Thanks for your extended views on the romanization of Korean. I think most Wikipedians are aware of what you cite here, but it's not up to us to solve these problems. I believe the consensus is to follow what is actually used, and by so doing we don't violate the suggestions by Wikipedia in general. Kokiri 09:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irregular spelling of personal names
Naming conventions for all Koreans should go something like this:


 * Syngman Rhee (in SKRR: I Seungman; &#51060;&#49849;&#47564;; &#26446;&#25215;&#26202;)

With the popular if ugly and inaccurate rendering first and the (S)outh (K)orean (R)evised (R)omanization for purposes of uniformity and for those who do not know there are many ways of transliterating Korean. This system could be added to all pages without confusion. DMC 05:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In principle, I have nothing to object, but think about the following points: 1. readability (if I read an artcicle, doesn't all the extra information distract?); 2. in SKRR is pretty meaningless - the abbreviation isn't used very often. --Kokiri 09:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If we could do this in as compact and readable way as possible, it might be acceptable...but I agree with Kokiri's point that we should not use an abbreviation that we made up or some rubric that is equally meaningless to the average reader. Here are 2 possible suggestions--note that these formulations would only be used at the beginning of the article on the person involved...not in links to the article, where we should use only the name that actually forms the article title (like Syngman Rhee):


 * 1. (cumbersome):


 * Syngman Rhee (Revised Romanization: I Seungman (Hangeul: &#51060;&#49849;&#47564;; Hanja: &#26446;&#25215;&#26202;)) was the first president of South Korea...


 * 2. (less cumbersome but still awkward):


 * Syngman Rhee (*) (Hangeul: &#51060;&#49849;&#47564;; Hanja: &#26446;&#25215;&#26202;) was the first president of South Korea...


 * ...and then, further down, at the bottom of the article, we could have:...

Alternate spellings

 * "Syngman Rhee" is written as "Rhee Sygnman" in the Korean name order, and according to the Revised Romanization of Korean would be spelled as "I Seungman."


 * For articles on North Korean personages, we should substitute McCune-Reischauer romanization for the Revised Romanization of Korean (sorry, but we have to keep in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy). I suppose the advantage of using the "Alternate spellings" format is that we could even respell these names according both romanization systems!  --Sewing 15:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (revised .)


 * I was thinking of the tag, but it doesn't work on Wikipedia, it seems. On the other hand, do we have to include all the alternatives in the text? Maybe we can reduce it to the most common name (e.g. Syngman Rhee) and leave all the explaining to the article on the person/place etc.? (just an idea, not an opinion) --Kokiri 16:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I was thinking to only have the alternate spellings in the article on that person/place. In links to it, we should definitely only use the name that actually forms the article title (like Syngman Rhee).  (I revised my examples above to reflect this.)  So if we have the explanatory material in the article, the question is, do we just weave it into the article text, or do we create an "Alternate spellings" section, or something else?  --Sewing 16:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

North Korean Romanization
I think we shouldn't apply S.Korean Romanization System to N.Korea related terms. Currently I use the M-R alternatively. Nanshu 07:37 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Why not? soax


 * Perhaps for N. Korean words, we use M-R followed by S. Korean Romanization in parenthesis. Or the other way around. --Menchi 08:37 May 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult subject...but if we stick as closely as possible to the NPOV policy, it might make sense to use M-R for the North, and the Revised Romanization for the south; or use RR for the south and both M-R and RR for the north. For place names especially, I am trying to use RR for the south and M-R for the north...thus: Gangweondo (&#45224;) and Kangw&#335;ndo (&#48513;) for &#44053;&#50896;&#46020;.  (I know strictly in M-R, we write "ui" (not "&#365;i") and "wo" (not "w&#335;"), but that bugs me!)  On the 2003 National Geographic map "The Two Koreas", M-R is used for the North and RR for the south, with diacritics retained in Shin&#365;iju and W&#335;nsan.  --Sewing 13:02, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC) (I posted this a few days ago but forgot to add my signature.)

Suggestion about inserting Hangeul and Hanja in Korean Entries

 * Hangeul's and Hanja's in the parenthesis .
 * Differenciate them by putting ; between them.
 * Hangeul comes first.
 * ? Should we put Hangeul and Hanja link before each of them ? ? If we should, let's avoid ins. (See below example.)
 * ? If the transliteration differs from the official romanization, should we also put it beside them ?


 * 1) ? Roh Moo-hyun (Hangeul: &#45432;&#47924;&#54788; ; Hanja: &#63795;&#27494;&#37449; ; Official transliteration: No Mu-hyeon)
 * 2) o Roh Moo-hyun (Hangeul: &#45432;&#47924;&#54788; ; Hanja: &#63795;&#27494;&#37449;)
 * 3) ? Roh Moo-hyun (&#45432;&#47924;&#54788; ; &#63795;&#27494;&#37449;) maybe too simple. To the readers who don't have any idea about korean characters may want to know about hangeul and hanja.
 * 4) x Roh Moo-hyun (In Hangeul: &#45432;&#47924;&#54788; ; In Hanja: &#63795;&#27494;&#37449;) too verbose
 * 5) ? Roh Moo-hyun (&#45432;&#47924;&#54788; ; &#63795;&#27494;&#37449;) How about this? I've already tried this in Chosun Ilbo


 * I think the last option, # 5, looks very asthetic. However, there is a danger that reader might mistake such links as links to pages titled in Han'geul or Hanja.


 * It is beneficial to include official transliteration is also useful for those who can't read Han'geul and/or Hanja. --Menchi 08:37 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Here is what I'm trying to do in my new articles:


 * The Gyeongbu Line (Gyeongbuseon (&#44221;&#48512;&#49440;; &#20140;&#37340;&#32218;) in Korean)...
 * Gunsan (&#44400;&#49328; (&#37089;&#23665;) in Korean)...
 * The Samil Movement (Samil Undong (&#49340;&#51068; &#50868;&#46041;; &#19977;&#19968;&#36939;&#21205;; "March 1st Movement") in Korean)...

I put the Hanja in the Gunsan example in parentheses because otherwise it would read "(&#44400;&#49328;; &#37089;&#23665; in Korean)...", which seems to suggest that the Hanja is Korean but the Hangeul isn't.

What do you think?

--Sewing 01:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe use slash between Hangeul & Hanja, like:
 * Gunsan (&#44400;&#49328;/&#37089;&#23665;) or Gunsan (&#44400;&#49328; / &#37089;&#23665;)
 * --Menchi 04:52, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * A slash is a possibility. Another one is to use separate parenthese for the Hanja, which is the standard practice in Korea; but then we would have nesting parentheses....  Example:
 * Gunsan (&#44400;&#49328; (&#37089;&#23665;))
 * --Sewing 13:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to forego M-R. Since this wikipedia is for people who don't speak Korean, most materials they might read outside of here would use M-R, and they would get very confused about which is which... Besides, the official system distorts pronounciation so much. We don't need yet another pinyin...


 * I don't think M-R does a much better job of accurately representing Korean pronunciation! The &#12593; (g) in &#44032;&#45796; (gada) is definitely not an English "k" sound; also, while "eo" might look strange at first (but it exists in the English name "George"), what is a non-Korean speaker to make of &#335; and &#365;?  Nevertheless, it might be useful to romanize very common or important terms in both systems, for the benefit of those who are familiar with the M-R spelling of a term....  There's a third system, by the way--the Yale Romanization--which is used in academic literature, but frankly, I think it looks horrible, and in my opinion it does a much worse job of representing Korean pronunciation accurately than either M-R or RR.  I believe it's mainly supposed to represent Hangeul spelling (not pronunciation) faithfully....  --Sewing 01:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Names of Dynasties and Monarchs
Well, it's time to standardize these things, as has been done (more or less?) for pages on Chinese history. I am going through the Wikipedia now, looking for Korean topics to add to the List of Korea-related topics page, and of course I'm finding a lot of inconsistency in how rulers are named, not to mention dynasties.

First of all, I saw a page entitled Joseon Dynasty, but it is called the Yi Dynasty (&#51060;&#50472; (&#63969;&#27663;; I Ssi) in Korean--Joseon was the name of the country. For naming individual monarchs, however, I suggest the following format, which does not use the dynastic name but the kingdom name:

King/Queen X (the Great) of Y

Where X = the ruler's posthumous name (Taejo, Sejong, etc.) and Y = the Kingdom's name (Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje, Goryeo, Joseon). The few Kings who have made the title "the Great" (Daewang (&#45824;&#50773;; &#22823;&#29579;)) will get the name inserted. Thus:


 * King Taejo of Goryeo (there was one)
 * King Taejo of Joseon
 * King Sejong the Great of Joseon
 * Emperor Gojong of Korea
 * Queen Min of Joseon (&#48124;&#50472;; Min Ssi, King Taejong of Joseon's wife; also the name of the wife of then-King Gojong)

Finally, I have used the Revised Romanization of Korean for the names of monarchs. There are 3 reasons for doing so: (1) It is now the official Romanization of South Korea, which has roughly twice the number of Korean speakers as North Korea; (2) It is easier to type than McCune-Reischauer (which is still the official system in North Korea); and (3) it is now the mandatory romanization scheme in South Korean textbooks. As an alternative, we could add the McCune-Reischauer spelling after the Revised spelling, in the body of the article, and/or have entries in the McCune-Reischauer spelling with redirects to the Revised Romanized spelling.

What do people think? --Sewing 23:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Revised 16 Oct 2003)


 * Yes for standardization. As for the Joseon Dynasty... move it and redirect the other way? Also, why not add a link to this page in the talk page of each Korea related article? I didn't know about this page when I started contributing... Kokiri 11:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea...but there are a lot of Korea-related talk pages! Perhaps as we edit a page, if we can remember to add a link back here on the talk page, then we can introduce the change that way, step by step.  If someone else doesn't move the Joseon Dynasty page, I will try to do it some time this weekend...  --Sewing 17:23, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, we have (quite some time ago) established that Joseon Dynasty is the most common form. Kokiri 10:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Serious Issues with WP naming
Lucky I found this page! Firstly: the dynasty is called Joseon dynasty, no idea why you folks think it should be Yi Dynasty. This name was used by the Japanese when they colonized Korea, surely not the right choice. Maybe you should check your facts against some literature. Secondly, why do you refer to the East Sea as Sea of Japan? Can't you folks accept that one place can have two names? Again, the Japanese colony is over... I suggest you use East Sea in a Korean context (and you can still link this to Sea of Japan) if you are serious about becoming a real encyclopedia. Good luck with Wikipedia!


 * It was I who said it should be called the Yi Dynasty. I have seen the dynasty referred to many times in Korean as Issi (&#51060;&#50472;; &#63969;&#27663;) or Ijo (&#51060;&#51312;; &#63969;&#26397;).  Joseon was the name of the kingdom, and Yi was the name of the royal family.  However, after doing some checking, I see that the naming of the dynasty is a contentious issue, and according to the Korea Information Service, "Joseon Dynasty" is the correct name.  I will change references to the dynasty over to "Joseon Dynasty"--but it will take a few days to fix.


 * I might note, however, that you yourself (or someone else using the same URL) wrote an article on 15 Oct 2003 about Gojong in which you described him as the "26th king of the Yi Dynasty." (See the page history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Emperor_Gojong_of_Korea&action=history .)


 * As for the East Sea/Sea of Japan issue, you obviously have not been following the ongoing debate over this issue. Yes, "East Sea" is an internationally recognized name for the body of water, and this has been reflected in recent edits.


 * Finally, if you see errors such as these, the beauty of Wikipedia is that you yourself can change them. --Sewing 17:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why has the dynasty often been called "Yi Dynasty" instead of the official name? It is because Chaoxian/Chosen/Joseon usually refers to Korea regardless of dynasty outside South Korea. So the specific dynasty is called by rulers' family name. Such a naming convention is common in East Asia. You would know &#21129;&#23435;, &#26361;&#39759; etc.

Then, why do South Koreans believe that "Yi Dynasty" is a derogative term? Here is my theory: In South Korea, "Joseon" is a historical term. It doesn't refer to modern Korea (they use "Han" instead) but only means the dynasty there. So South Koreans forget why the dynasty is called so. And some of them unwisely associate the name with their anti-Japanism. It is a pity that Koreans do not validate rumors by themselves but accept them without questioning. --Nanshu 01:23, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * A possible reason may be the fact that those few Koreans who insist on the use of "Jeoseon dynasty" may not be familiar with the meaning and the use of the word "dynasty". Using this logic, King Gojong (a member of the Yi family) would have started as a monarch of the "Jeoseon dynasty" and died as an emperor (the only one, to be precise!) of the "Daehan Jeguk dynasty". While no-one in Korea would support the point of view that, say, the Habsburg dynasty in Europe was named that way by the Japanese or any other foreign power, these few nationalists insist that in the case of Korea, scholary conventions should not be followed and the name of the country, rather than the name of the ruling family should be used together with "dynasty". However, they won't go so far and, for the sake of consistancy, speak of the "Austria dynasty" or the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nations dynasty". As it is the case with the rumor that the spelling of Korea was originally "Corea" before the Japanese colonial powers changed it, this is a nationalist point of view based on folkore and urban legends, shared by very few Koreans and no serious researcher of Korean studies. This point of view can thus safely be ignored. Note that this is fundamentally different from the case of East Sea/Sea of Japan, where both names (for political and historic reasons) are in use and are equally correct.


 * Gojong was not the only emperor of Korea: his son Sunjong was emperor from 1907 to 1910. He became emperor when Gojong was deposed by the Japanese.  --Sewing 01:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct. I apologize. The rest of the paragraph, however, seems to be valid.


 * Valid in the opinion of the anonymous you and the person who wrote the paragraph. --Sewing 22:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Since the name of the country was &#26397;&#39854;, how can the name of the dynasty also be &#26397;&#39854;? Especially since "&#26397;" already means "dynasty"! How can we refer to it this way, "&#26397;&#39854;&#26397;"? And by this logic, when the name of the country was changed to "&#22823;&#38867;&#24093;&#22283;" was this the end of the "&#26397;&#39854;&#26397;" and the beginning of the "&#22823;&#38867;&#26397;"?! Let's use the term "Yi Dynasty", it makes things simpler. --Ce garcon 07:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &#26397; of &#26397;&#39854; does not mean a dynaty, it means the morning. Sometimes Joseon is translated into "fresh as the morning". I found also Korean have another case like this. They call Goryeo Dynasty instread of Wang Dynasty. They are very popular names, &#26397;&#39854;(&#29579;)&#26397; and &#39640;&#40599;(&#29579;)&#26397;. They are not weird. -- Ryuch 14:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of given name
I can't find any guidance here on whether (for example) Kim Il-Sung or Kim Il-sung is the preferred form. Both seem to be widely used in English-language media. I have recently written articles on Kim Jong-Nam and Kim Jong-Chul with all three name-elements capitalised. Any comments? Adam 10:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Il-sung' (according to the official romanizations), not capitalized like 'Il-Sung' (like many overseas Koreans like to write). The reason being that the syllables are not the middle and last names, but one given name. It is like calling Adam Dam or A by writing A-Dam. And yes, in some romanizations, the two syllables can in fact be joined, dehyphenated. But then, Vietnamese script would've written it as 'Il Sung' (note the space). But then they semi-officially call Il a middle name too. I don't get that reasoning. Menchi 11:35, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, thanks for that, but I am no wiser on what the Wikipedia policy is. If there isn't one I will leave my articles as they are. Adam 12:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The examples of given names given on this convention page since ages ago have always been the official one, i.e., decapitalized, if hyphenated. It even uses Kim Il-sung! --Menchi 12:35, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK *sigh* I will change the articles. Also Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il (when it is unprotected). Adam 12:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure there's an official convention (at all). The government in the South spells first names as two seperate words, and in the documents I have seen, all capitalized :-). Most Koreans spell there names hypenated or joined (as one word). When hypehnated, it is commonly spelt with only one capital letter (the one at the beginning of the word). This is done to reflect that the name, despite consisting of two parts, is actually one. Many people I know despise the spelling in two words. HTH. --Kokiri 21:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hangeul vs. Hangul
See: Talk:Hangul for discussions. Kokiri (rev. Sewing)

Please do not just change the convention before consulting the community. Changing the spelling of a word is not just about changing links and moving the article. There are many occurrences of Hangeul which are not linked. Also, some sentences need rewriting... The discussion is at Talk:Hangul. Kokiri 12:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Korean Name Tables
These are a lot cleaner than the way we (especially I!) were doing things before. I added a new section to the top of the article page. --Sewing 20:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * They are great! Kokiri 10:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've renamed them as "Korean name tables" since the former section heading of "info boxes" is kind of vague...  --Sewing 03:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've updated the Article template with the Wikimedia table markup. This way editing table is real easy; adding and correcting information is much easier this way. Kokiri 09:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japan
I don't want to cross-post, but there are quite a few links to Japan in Korean topics that actually should link to Empire of Japan. Just bear the existence of this article in mind when linking... Kokiri 22:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Historical Periods
I have checked on the web and found that both spellings Barhae and Balhae are used for the Korean &#48156;&#54644;. Actually, the government brochure I checked uses Balhae. -- Kokiri 18:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(This is how we commonly use it). --Kokiri 10:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The historical periods are: Goguryeo (&#44256;&#44396;&#47140;); Balhae (or Barhae) (&#48156;&#54644;); Three Kingdoms (&#49340;&#44397;&#49884;&#45824;); Goryeo (&#44256;&#47140;); Joseon (&#51312;&#49440;)
 * The Three Kingdoms are transcribed as: Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje.

I have created. We can add this to all tak pages of Korea-related articles. I hope this maximizes compliance and involvement with our conventions... --Kokiri 15:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, you can't add this anymore... I've just gone trough the list (Korea related topics). Kokiri 18:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, &#53076;&#45180;&#47532;: Good job! I've added the message to MediaWiki custom messages.  --Sewing 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)