Talk:Park Jong-chul

Requested move 29 April 2023

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: no consensus. Moved back to Bak Jong-cheol per WP:RM/CI#Determining consensus's third paragraph. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 10:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Park Jong-cheol → Park Jong-chul – Move back to the original article title per this google ngram - this article was previously moved by me from Bak Jong-cheol to Park Jong-cheol. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 10:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• In searching for sources, it's easy to find "Park Jong-cheol", [1], [2], [3]. It's similarly easy to find sources using "Park Jong-chul", [4], [5]. It's not clear to me that one or the other is the common name. In which case I would oppose according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). I don't agree with the methodology of just relying on ngrams in this case. It's hard to take the numerical result as being credibly significant if it says zero results for Park Jong-cheol, and very small numbers for Park Jong-chul in absolute terms – I think the better explanation is that ngrams just didn't have enough samples either way. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd state that English-language editions of Korean newspapers generally do not follow the typical transliterations adopted by the English-language press outside of Korea. So while the NYTimes [6], the LATimes [7], CNN [8], and various academic publications [9] [10] use "Park Jong-chul", Korean publications will have mixed usage. :3 F4U (they/it) 07:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 10:52, 6 May 2023 (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.

Requested move 8 July 2023

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) The Night Watch (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Bak Jong-cheol → Park Jong-chul – Per WP:COMMONNAME. I chose Park Jong-chul per its usage by Korean news, non-Korean news, academic papers, and ngrams, (yes, I used the previous sources on the talk from a couple months ago, but I still think they’re relevant) but either way Bak must be changed, as little to no sources call him that, even if it is the “correct” romanization. Dantus21 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Pings for @MaterialWorks, @Adumbrativus, and @Freedom4U as they participated in the previous discussion Dantus21 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my previous move request. There is a clear WP:COMMONNAME in this instance, and it certainly isn't "Bak Jong-cheol". :3 F4U (they/it) 05:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. IMO there was already clearly a consensus for Park over Bak. At the very least, nobody was objecting to it or asking for Bak back. I am basically indifferent to eo vs. u, but slightly prefer u. MOS:KO#Romanization somewhat defaults to standardized Romanization, which would give the current title, Bak Jong-cheol (RR). But it also requires following common name, which means Bak is clearly out. So we can't stay here. The spelling "Jong-chul" further throws standardized Romanization out the window, but it appears that chul is somewhat more common. However, it is odd that Ngrams finds no English books with Park Jong-cheol, when there certainly are. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2023 (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.