Talk:Kwansŏ

Requested move 31 May 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Kwanso → Kwansŏ – Without the diacritic it's suggesting a completely different word in Korean (관소 vs 관서). There is unlikely to be a WP:COMMONNAME for this place; the geographical region is mostly referred to historically, and historical papers in English use the diacritic. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). SilverLocust 💬 18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: Four comments below (the ones from 30 May) are copied here from the contested technical request. SilverLocust 💬 18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English.. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lots of Wikipedia articles have diacritics in their titles. Do you think they should all be removed? WP:DIACRITICS does not discourage them, and it is suggested here that the diacritic would help clarify the topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I am only opposed to English Wikipedia's use of accents and/or diacritics in transliterations from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet. A more-detailed examination of this topic appears at Talk:Shūkan Shinchō#Requested move 29 February 2024. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully do not agree with the argument you present in that thread, and think it'd be better to propose changes to manual(s) of style instead of presenting this argument on individual move requests. Right now, the diacritic aligns with the Korean manual of style, and I'll continue to follow that MOS until it is changed. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Since English Wikipedia is consensus-based, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may indeed decide in favor of accent or diacritic addition in some instances and against such addition in other instances depending upon the number of participants in any particular discussion and such participants' mindset at the time of discussion.

Thus, each such nomination should have its own discussion on its own talk page to provide a record for future inquiries. As an alternative to the first example, the sparsely-attended discussion at Talk:Akanaṉūṟu#Requested move 19 April 2024 did not result in the addition of a another diacritic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Right but your argument goes against the community consensus established in the MOS, which is to use the diacritics. You have an interesting point and it deserves to be discussed; I'm not saying you can't have this discussion here, I'm saying why not just do it all at once in a more visible/impactful venue rather than opposing these local changes that are abiding by consensus. Either way, these local consensuses on especially pages this minor are just minor precedent; basically just additional comments if referenced in other discussions. They're easily overruled by disagreement in other threads. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed true that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may account for various inconsistencies in the application of MOS, but such is the nature of consensus. As pointed out by Ahecht in the earlier discussion about the use of diacritics in transliteration, "...the official guideline is that their use is neither encouraged nor discouraged."

Thus, unless the use of diacritics is made into a decree, there will inevitably be a difference of opinion as exemplified by the three-to-two vote in favor of diacritics among the five participants at Talk:Shūkan Shinchō#Requested move 29 February 2024 and the two-to-zero vote against the diacritic by the two participants at Talk:Akanaṉūṟu#Requested move 19 April 2024. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss the comment about this process not being a vote? When I look at Talk:Akanaṉūṟu#Requested move 19 April 2024, both the existing and suggested forms included diacritics, so I don't think it's very relevant, and one of the opposing comments was about a lack of sources being cited for the proposed move – and no sources were ever provided. For Talk:Shūkan Shinchō#Requested move 29 February 2024, it seems to have been concluded that "reliable sources generally include the diacritics". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Various editors do indeed post differing views on the subject. If there was no need for a vote in this process, then the official guideline, instead of stating that the use of diacritics "is neither encouraged nor discouraged", would issue an edict that diacritics should be appended without any need for consultation or consensus. There was no unanimity among the five participants at Talk:Shūkan Shinchō#Requested move 29 February 2024 and the final vote tally was three to two. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, I'm saying why not just do it all at once in a more visible/impactful venue rather than opposing these local changes that are abiding by consensus.

I'm still unconvinced of both your argument and of the need for this local debate. I strongly recommend you propose a major change to the MOS and have a more in depth conversation there. You'd need to have the same debate again anyway. You seem to have an attitude of "yep that's consensus", and while that's true in a very minor sense, you're really just building up paperwork. Few would want to dig through the mountains of local conversations. I think you should have a good, concise, thoughtful conversation once and move on. You don't need a long papertrail on Wikipedia to prove things. Because again, all it takes is "I'm not convinced by that paper trail" and poof it's pointless. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The below quote from Hydrangeans, "Various systems for Romanizing specific writing systems follow rules different from English, including the use of diacritics, and this appears in titles across Wikipedia: Shūsaku Endō and Bayan-Ölgii Province, for instance", does indeed confirm that such diacritics appear in numerous instances throughout English Wikipedia and launching an offensive against all of them would not be practical.

Although I feel that the 19th-century and early 20th-century diacritic-based transliterations into English are outdated, I don't have the energy for the research required to prove my point. Sufficient for the day is opposition to any nomination that proposes or encourages addition of such diacritics and support for any nomination that proposes deletion of such diacritics. Editors who share this perspective may likewise decide to express their opposition by joining these discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Modifying MOS's is not impractical. You can start with the Korean MOS then work your way up. You have an interesting proposal, just start at higher levels rather than doing half-measures at local levels and hoping others will fill in the gaps. This will require research, yes, but since you're the one going against consensus, the burden of proof is on you. This conversation is already pretty long without having accomplished much; this is what I meant by "mountains of paperwork". If you do reply again, please make it a thorough proposal with a plan for systematizing your perspective. It's a reasonable perspective, but I think there are better ways to communicate it. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I respect your attempt at a resolution and should add that, since the article's lead sentence states, "Kwansŏ (Korean: 관서), or Gwanseo, is a region of Korea", if your nomination had proposed Kwanso → Gwanseo, I would have voted "support", thus hopefully eliminating the problem that, "Without the diacritic it's suggesting a completely different word in Korean" —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But that'd go against WP:NCKO. This is a region that's 1. in North Korea and 2. referred to mostly historically, pre-1945. Even if we had just one of those factors, it'd require the use of MR. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Various systems for Romanizing specific writing systems follow rules different from English, including the use of diacritics, and this appears in titles across Wikipedia: Shūsaku Endō and Bayan-Ölgii Province, for instance. When I looked on GoogleScholar, that also bore out OP's statement that Kwansŏ is used by reliable sources for the topic area. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• We're not voting here. Since the opposition is not based on policy (and goes against the guidelines), I am going to move this per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles#Romanization which says to use McCune–Reischauer romanization for North Korea. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have reverted the move per Roman Spinner's request and opened this requested-move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Both the nominator and Hydrangeans confirmed that some sources use the diacritics, and the nominator indicated that the diacritic is also helpful for clarifying the identification of the topic. Hydrangeans noted that Romanizations often include diacritics and reported that their use is prevalent in similar cases on Wikipedia, and WP:DIACRITICS does not support the idea that diacritics should be generally discouraged in these circumstances. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCKO. The article subject is a region in North Korea, so the McCune–Reischauer romanization – which includes diacritics for certain phonemes – should be used. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.