Talk:Republic of Korea Navy

South vs Republic of

Shouldn't this article be titled "South Korean Navy"? Per WP:COMMON? 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to follow the proper meaning of the official abbreviation ROKN that's most widely used in literature. We have a lot of ROKN out there but no SKN for example. ROKN means Republic of Korea Navy. The same way RN and USN means Royal Navy and United States Navy and not British Navy and American Navy. Desagwan (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But we don't title abbreviations, we title common names. Since South Korea is the common name, I think that should be the title and ROKN can be a redirect. Also, the common name policy I mentioned explicitly says to ignore official names when confusing or unclear, and "Republic of Korea" is unclear to most readers, who don't know which Korea has which name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to reserve my opinion until other editors share their views on the matter. For now I just want to point out that the common name policy does not 'explicitly' state that we have to 'ignore' official names under circumstances groovily outlined. We have to settle this matter with a consensus among editors, as the common name policy does not explicitly set any obligations whatsoever on this subject. It only suggests recommendations and it's up to us which one to follow it. Desagwan (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Republic of Korea Navy → South Korean Navy – Per Common name policy. This country is rarely called Republic of Korea, even in Korea, except by the few knowledgable enough to know the official names. The official names are also unclear and confusing (we all know the north is not a democratic republic). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you also simultaneously propose renaming PLAN to Chinese Navy, ROC Navy to Taiwanese Navy, and JMSDF to Japanese Navy per common name policy? Desagwan (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked and can't say yet. If the titles are really abbreviations, of course they should be moved. My issue is that there is no confusion as to what country it represents, So, I would say both China and Taiwan's name should be moved, but Japan is fine, off the top of my head. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, and I would probably support moving most of the articles that Desagwan listed. Clear case of a common name reducing ambiguity and adding clarity. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Writers on naval affairs call the subject by the current title. See Jane's, Naval Today, or 7th Fleet News. Here is Chosun Ilbo, Korea's top newspaper. The Chinese navy is at People's Liberation Army Navy, the Taiwanese navy is at Republic of China Navy, the Japanese navy is at Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the former South Vietnamese navy is at Republic of Vietnam Navy, and the North Korean navy is at Korean People's Navy. We had an RM to retain the British navy at "Royal Navy" fairly recently. We also have Royal Australian Navy, although the logic of this RM would suggest "Australian Navy." In this case, the title includes both "Korea" and "navy". So it is not a large departure from the common name, at least not compared to the Chinese or Taiwanese examples. Kauffner (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, it has Korea in it, the problem is that there are two of those and which one isn't clear to most people. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reasons Kauffner listed above. And we should first seek to discuss and form consensus with editors in those Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and other nations' armed forces about applying the common naming convention on all of them to retain universality of the policy in all relevant articles. Desagwan (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I never said to change all of them. In general, I'm fine with official names as long as they unambiguously indicate the country and unambiguously indicate that it's a navy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you think may be unusually ambiguous about Republic of Korea Navy and Korea People's Navy, if, simultaneously, it isn't with People's Republic of China Navy and Republic of China Navy, or Vietnam People's Navy and Republic of Vietnam Navy? Do you accept that there would have to be many Navy names that must be examined and renamed as an extension of your proposal here? Desagwan (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Republic of Korea is ambiguous because most of our readers don't know that it means South. We aren't writing an encyclopedia for people that already know stuff, we're writing it for people who don't. And we don't need some massive overriding policy discussion to change a single article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is a lot of sense in discussing 'some massive overriding policy' because ensuring the consistency of the usage of common names policy is a legitimate concern. If we apply changes to ROKN then we should also ensure that the same change can be applied in all known articles that needs it without any further dispute. How are people expected to distinguish the two Vietnams better than the two Koreas when using their official names? How about the two Chinas? ROKN is no more ambiguous than PLAN, ROCN, VPN or ROVN. And there may be many other similar examples that we just don't know of yet. I suggest moving this discussion to somewhere where we discuss the case of all armed forces with ambiguous names together, rather than handling them individually where, unfortunately but quite possibly, the subjective volition of a specific group of editors may lead to inconsistency in the usage of the common names policy. If the name changes can safely be applied, through overwhelming consensus, to other important articles like PLA, PLAAF, PLAN, ROCN, and others, whereby many supportive cases that render good credibility to the desirability and effectiveness of the suggested common names usage have already been established, then I too will voice no more opposition to applying the same changes to ROK armed forces. Desagwan (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Using the "country's navy" format improves recognizability (see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) in this case. We name the country South Korea for the same reason. For other naval forces, using the "country's navy" format sometimes reduces precision and not always improves recognizability, and has weight for consistensy to use the official name; e.g. Japanese Navy is ambiguous with Imperial Japanese Navy, and Australian Navy is not so much an improvement over Royal Australian Navy. They should be discussed separately, on case-by-case basis. --Kusunose 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The name Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force at first glance is also actually ambiguous about whether it's really a navy for unfamiliar readers. I want to see the changes more credibly implemented in more well-visited sites first before we also apply it in this article as an efficient solution. Desagwan (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What's the problem this move is supposed to solve? Search for "south korea navy" and look where you end up. Does the ROKN even have a 'common name'? —WWoods (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless United States Army is renamed to US Army, and the Royal Air Force is renamed to British Air Force. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not discussing those pages, we're discussing this one. Changing this one page doesn't force us to rename 50 other ones. And I don't get that US Army comment at all, it doesn't make any sense. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blue Water Navy

Hello editors! A section on the Republic of Korea Navy has recently been added to the article Blue-water navy, under countries described as having an emerging blue-water navy. However this could benefit from further attention, particularly from those who can read Korean, which I can't! Would much appreciate it if anyone here could have a look. The objective is not to make the section longer, but to improve the quality and focus. Many thanks Thom2002 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As Thom2002 already said, please discuss anything you want to change.Please do not add unreferenced information without discussion.Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Naval engagements incomplete

The list of naval engagements ought to include the sinking of ROKS Cheonan.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Romanised Name: Son Won-il

• Sohn Won-yil has 13,600 hits on google ("Sohn Won-yil" has 2200 hits)
• Son Wonil has 156,000 hits on google ("Son Wonil" has 824 hits)
• Son Won-il has 4,440,000 hits on google ("Son Won-il" has 5780 hits)

Google's ngram tool records no hits for any form of his name in the English language corpus they use.

Based on actual usage in English, it would appear that "Son Won-Il" should be the proper name in usage for the article. Based on the WP MoS for Korean names, (WP:NCKO), "Son Won-Il" should still be the correct listing.

What is the basis for the non-standard romanisation used in this article (and the article for the man himself)? Based on these google results, I would say both articles should use Son Won-il. If there is a prior history of a non-standard romanisation, these google results do not lend any credence to it being "common". Rhialto (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That is because there are many 손원일s. But here we are talking about one unique person, 손원일 (born in 1909), who happened to spell his name as Sohn Won-yil. Do google search for Lee Seungman (이승만). there are 1,240,000 results. And do the same for Syngman Rhee, then there are 273,000 results. The number is smaller, but the president 이승만, did spell his name as Syngman Rhee, which is not a systematically romanized name. Nevertheless the wiki article is under the name of Syngman Rhee. According to the MoS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Spelling_and_romanization), "Use a systematically transliterated or otherwise romanized name (Aleksandr Tymoczko, Wang Yanhong); but if there is a common English form of the name (Tchaikovsky, Chiang Kai-shek), use that form instead."

Sohn Won-yil is the same case. It was romanized as since 1940s. See the caption for the picture of the following link as an example: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/view.php?id=25589Bin2k1 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that there is at least one use of that non-standard romanisation, which I have never disputed. And you've also shown that at least one such usage is from a reputable source. However, the criterion for adopting a non-standard spelling isn't either of these. The criterion is that it has achieved common usage in English-language usage.

Here is another wikipedia search, which should firmly remove any counts of other people named Son Won-il:

• 366 results: "admiral Sohn Won-yil" -wikipedia
• 750 results: "admiral Son Won-il" -wikipedia
• 3 results: "admiral Son Wonil" -wikipedia

This search once again shows that the most common spelling for the man is Son Won-il.

Although not (afaik, but it certainly should be) in the MoS, I would accept a strong preference from the man himself regarding how his name should be spelled. However, he is dead, so we can't ask him, and I am not aware of any statements from himself on the matter. Are there any? Rhialto (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As a counter-point to the photo, here is a historical document dating back to 1949 (a year earlier than the photo with the other spelling), also ultimately from the US government, which uses the "Son Won Il" spelling. Whatever else they had to say about the man, they were not consistent in spelling his name. Rhialto (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The hit counts noted above are low enough that this can probably be considered a case of divided usage. I would propose the following:

• Son Won-il be a disambiguation page between this admiral and the other Son Won-ils (e.g., Son Won-il (voice actor).)
• The admiral's page should be called Son Won-il (admiral). It should consistently use the Son Won-il spelling, and also prominently mention in the lead paragraph the alternate spelling Sohn Won-yil. This reflects the last stable version before the spelling was questioned, and as such using this one would be in line with MoS policy.
• Sohn Won-yil should redirect to Son Won-il (admiral).

Rhialto (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the linked picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desk_name_plate_of_Adm_Sohn_Won-yil.jpg

They are desk name plates of Adm. Sohn Won-yil when he was serving civilian careers (displayed in Navy Museum at Korea Naval Academy, South Korea)

In the name plates, his name is spelled as SOHN WON YIL or WON YIL SOHN, which is a personal "statement".Bin2k1 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the source? If it is your own work, as it has been tagged, it is clearly WP:OR.

Also, this object does not in any way indicate his opinion on the matter. All it shows is that a nameplate was provided for him, which he (probably) used. There could be many reasons for his using it, but given Korea culture, him refusing to use it for reasons of romanisation was probably not a realistic option. Again, what did he *say*? Rhialto (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

1. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research".

2. What do you mean by "given Korea culture, him refusing to use it for reasons of romanisation was probably not a realistic option"? Are you a Korean? Or do you have an extensive knowledge on Korean culture? I do not understand why you speculate that Adm. Sohn might use misspelled name plates in relation with Korean culture. He was the Chief of Naval Operations during the Korea War working side by side with the US Navy and later became the Ambassador to Germany. I think he knew how to spell his name in alphabet. It does not matter with the Korean culture.Bin2k1 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: A digital archive: 'January 29, 1954 Letter, Minister of National Defense Won-Yil Sohn to General Maxwell D. Taylor' (Adm. Sohn served as the Minister of National Defense from 1953 to 1956.) http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122897.pdf?v=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Bin2k1 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than respond to the ad hominem attack ("re you a Korean? Or do you have an extensive knowledge on Korean culture?"), I will wait for other interested parties to chime in on the discussion. Rhialto (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Republic of Korea Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201195941/http://www.imhc.mil.kr/imhcroot/upload/resource/hm-03.pdf to http://www.imhc.mil.kr/imhcroot/upload/resource/hm-03.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205014303/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/rok/roksh-mr/paktusn.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/rok/roksh-mr/paktusn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716130959/http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/allied.shtml to http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/allied.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127132222/http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=201101100011 to http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=201101100011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Republic of Korea Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003059/http://www.rokmc.mil.kr/bbs/intro/formation.jsp to http://www.rokmc.mil.kr/bbs/intro/formation.jsp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mnd.go.kr/news/mndNews/content.jsp?enewsFlag=mnd&section=p_sec_3&enewsId=155119621
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mnd.go.kr/cms_file/Focus/2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201195941/http://www.barrystrauss.com/pdfs/yi-mhq.2.pdf to http://www.barrystrauss.com/pdfs/yi-mhq.2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011031809/http://ki.warmemo.co.kr:8101/warmemo/jsp/data/view.jsp?type=2&pkey=625HM00015 to http://ki.warmemo.co.kr:8101/warmemo/jsp/data/view.jsp?type=2&pkey=625HM00015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031072835/http://www.ceoi.org/8ceoi%28text%29/8ceoi%28text21%29.htm to http://www.ceoi.org/8ceoi%28text%29/8ceoi%28text21%29.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121219201811/http://www3.yonsei.ac.kr:8888/kdjlibrary/historyData/researchData/viewNew.asp?pkid=30009&searchValue=&sYear=2001&sMonth=03&sDay=01&eYear=2001&eMonth=04&eDay=17&searchFlag=Y&historyYear=&itemGubun=1&page=1 to http://www3.yonsei.ac.kr:8888/kdjlibrary/historyData/researchData/viewNew.asp?pkid=30009&searchValue=&sYear=2001&sMonth=03&sDay=01&eYear=2001&eMonth=04&eDay=17&searchFlag=Y&historyYear=&itemGubun=1&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent change on removing the table of commissioned ships

The table of commissioned ships that has been removed is not a redundancy; it is a summary of commissioned ships of the ROK Navy, and this kind of overview isn't found elsewhere. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to give a concise summary for those who do not wish to go through detailed info on the list page. For example, articles on the US Navy and the Royal Navy all provide enough information or an article page before referring to the list page.--Bin2k1 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Major update

The article has been updated and revised extensively since September 2018. Bin2k1 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20180914 pss 1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)