Jump to content

Talk:Imjonseong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Imjonseong Fortress)

Requested move 9 February 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - to Imjonseong. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imjonseong Fortress → Imjonsŏng – I recently WP:BOLDly moved to the proposed target, but was reverted with rationale "the only source in the article uses Imjonseong Fortress".

This is a perennial problem for romanization of Korean terms. In general, MOS:KO and WP:NCKO assume that a single attestation to a spelling is not enough to adequately establish a romanization, because there are so many conflicting romanization practices in use.

Either way, the practice for this is clearly lined out in WP:KO-BUILDING: we establish COMMONNAME (I'd argue one doesn't exist; attestations to this fortress in English are sparse), and if one doesn't exist, we romanize following MOS:KO-ROMAN. KO-ROMAN says it's a pre-1945 concept, so we follow McCune–Reischauer, which is Imjonsŏng. seefooddiet (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has one source, which originates from the Korean government and uses Imjonseong Fortress. I appreciate all romanization difficulties, I worked with zillions of Russian and Ukrainian articles where one has the same issue, but with all respect, unless we have more sources, I would oppose. Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm familiar with the difficulties here, including the ongoing debate about the utility of the current MOS. Where the sole source used in the article uses RR, which is also accessible to a general English-speaking audience (because it lacks the ⟨ŏ⟩), it seems we should give some weight to that. Google Scholar returns only one result for Imjonsŏng Fortress and a handful for Imjonseong Fortress (most of these come for the same two sites). WP:TITLECHANGE favors maintaining longstanding, stable article titles absent a compelling rationale. For these reasons, I oppose, but would defer to editors with more expertise and better arguments. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about above few points for past few days. The reason the MOS and NCKO are built on not trusting single attestations is because there are like 7-8 different groups that each have different standards. If you take a single sample you risk sampling from any of those groups. Ymblanter mentions "the Korean government", but remember that there are two of them, and that other groups outside of the Korean govts disagree with both of them. Even if we choose to obey one of those standards, people have complained in the past that we haven't listened to some other group, and their complaints aren't without merit.
This is the reason why we have these defaults built into MOS:KO-ROMAN. When we rely on single attestations, we risk swinging between titles each time new attestations are added. It also hurts WP:TITLECON. Per the above comments, "unless we have more sources" is the issue. Each new source would likely swing the title.
It's been well-established that in general, writings on Korean history still majority use McCune–Reischauer, per WP:ROMANKO. This is the reason we default to MR. But if you decide to value single attestations over the default practice, the default practice is effectively worthless; you can find single attestations to basically any spelling, including ad-hoc, for most Korean terms. So then we shouldn't have defaults at all.
In short, I wavered for a bit then reaffirmed my belief that relying on single attestations is likely to be distracting and costly for us because of how messy Korean romanization is. We have well-researched and argued default assumptions that we should rely on. seefooddiet (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet Do you think Mycetaea's Google Scholar links are not evidence of a common name? I see 9 results for the RR name [1] and none for the MR name. Those nine mostly come from two websites, but since these seem to be scholarly databases collecting papers from different sources, I think they can be counted as several separate sources. Toadspike [Talk] 18:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:KO/RS#Scholarly literature (I didn't write this bit; this is a community consensus). DBpia and similar South Korean paper engines require English-language synopses, but these are often really poorly written and we don't generally accept them. It's pretty common for romanization mistakes and typos to be in these kinds of synopses. seefooddiet (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I am neutral on the romanization issue, though it looks like the guidelines say we should go with MR (so they support the move). I support removing "Fortress" from the title as redundant, since the last character of the name ('seong' in 'Imjonseong') means 'fortress'. Toadspike [Talk] 07:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Myceteae. Can be revisited if there are more sources, but while there's only a single source, we should follow the Anglicization it uses. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with this take per above. Doing this results in titles swinging between numerous inconsistent practices frequently and hurts consistency. seefooddiet (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Natural languages have inconsistencies. This isn't an error or a mistake, it's just how things are.
    On the alternative proposals below: I'm fine with the alternate proposal of removing "Fortress" from the title. SnowFire (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While true, Wikipedia tends to try to minimize inconsistencies where possible by having formatting and spelling rules. Hence "consistency" being on the criteria for page titles. Inconsistency being a part of something doesn't mean that we should abandon all attempts to improve consistency. seefooddiet (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of removing the work "Fortress" from the title? Having both "seong" and "fortress" is repetitive, and only a couple other articles in Category:Castles in South Korea have "Fortress" in their title.
I goofed the ping by not signing, so let's try again: @Ymblanter, Myceteae, and SnowFire: Toadspike [Talk] 07:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think we should do this at least. WP:KO-BUILDING in general recommends we don't use "fortress". seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing "Fortress" regardless of which romanization system is followed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is despite the fact that English speakers don't call bridges "ponts", stations "gares", squares "platzes", gates "puertas", temples "mandirs", islands "pulaus", mountains "jabals", etc.
Also keep in mind that the source for this article [2] technically calls it "Imjonseong Fortress, Yesan", not just "Imjonseong Fortress", so if some conciseness is desired, it seems better to me to remove both "Fortress" and "Yesan" instead of just "Yesan". Malerisch (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imjonseong&oldid=1285740299"