Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#MRR guideline?

Unsourced hanja epidemic

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea
 – seefooddiet (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I off base or does there seem to be a lot of unsourced hanja in BLPs? I just clicked through about 100 articles and of the articles that had Hanja name in the infobox, only one of them was sourced. For some names there could be hundreds of different combinations... surely this should be sourced in every instance. Are people just guessing?

I find it hard to believe we have a reliable source for most of these... where are people pulling these from? RachelTensions (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not great but since it's generally minimally harmful it doesn't bother me so much in comparison to other issues on the WikiProject. For comparison, plenty of non-Korean BLPs have unsourced birth dates. For articles with higher page views I think we could make more of an effort to source the Hanja. seefooddiet (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if sources even exist for a lot of them... In many instances (especially for younger people), unless someone has stated somewhere what their Hanja are, I'm not sure where that information would be published reliably. RachelTensions (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; I have seen celebrities disclose it (sometimes in their autograph or on TV when introducing themselves). Some, even if they don't directly give the Hanja, give enough info abt the meaning of their names to allow for figuring out what Hanja they use.
We do need to be mindful about MOS:HANJAHANZI though; this has happened a number of times that I know of on enwiki seefooddiet (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, it is very common for non-English names everywhere to be unsourced. As seefooddiet says, not great, but not considered a significant problem. Sometimes people guess, sometimes someone might know and not think it needs a source. CMD (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that a lot of hanja names on Wikipedia are actually from Chinese-language sources, which are known to "invent" Chinese-character forms for native Korean names and unknown hanja names.
I sometimes remove Chinese-character forms that are clearly from Chinese-language sources (examples: #1, #2), but I am quite sure that there are lots of undetected ones. 172.56.232.61 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling a vast majority of them are either completely made up by people just looking for something to put in the empty "hanja" parameter, or pulled from Chinese sources that invent their own.
What are the chances that people who use completely fabricated stage names like Baekho (singer), Cha Eun-woo or Eunhyuk even have hanja versions of those names in the first place? RachelTensions (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a person stated what the hanja for their name is, any hanja for a name should be considered unreliable. This includes stage names. 172.56.232.61 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw I think people generally take these Chinese characters from other language Wikipedias or from Namuwiki.
  • For Baekho, the only mention of those Chinese characters on his namuwiki page is from a Taiwanese interview on YouTube. It's not clear from there whether he gave the video makers his Chinese characters or if they made them up.
  • For Cha, that hanja is present on his Namuwiki article, with no real source for it.
  • Eunhyuk's Hanja on the Chinese Wikipedia is sourced to this Chinese-language page.
So at least 2/3 of those examples probably implicitly came from Chinese-language sources lol... unreliable per MOS:HANJAHANZI.
I agree we should treat unsourced Hanja with skepticism. I think we should allow tagging unsourced Hanja as citation needed, and sometimes deleting them. Mass deletion I think would be inappropriate, as some of these names are probably correct and these are minimally harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some (unspoken?) rule about not using {{citation needed}} tags in infoboxes? RachelTensions (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just worded it weirdly. I meant "We should handle this by tagging with CN in most cases, although deletion may still be acceptable" seefooddiet (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's Taeyeon, who, according to her infobox, uses "金泰耎" as hanja for "Kim Tae-yeon" but inexplicably uses the entirely different hanja "太妍" for just "Taeyeon"... RachelTensions (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
namuwiki shows yet another set of hanja and says that 太妍 is the Chinese-language transcription. Think deletion in these scenarios is ok seefooddiet (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just tag it and see what happens, if it's still nonsense in a few days I'll take it out RachelTensions (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved this over from WT:KOREA; I'm going to reword the MOS to encourage the sourcing of Hanja. seefooddiet (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified on my user page (thank you! I never see these discussions). Unsure how much of an epidemic it is as I mainly see researcher pages these days and not more widely popular figures like singers or actors. I have a few times seen some really weird characters appearing under hanja, which clearly came from a Chinese language spelling and not their actual hanja. I would presume all or a significant amount of hanja appearing by stagename would be incorrect as younger generations care less and less about hanja than in the past. I would be surprised if artists spend the time and effort to make hanja for their stagename as it will never be see or used by...much of anyone. Is there something we can add to the code next to hanja so it won't appear on lists like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_hanja)? Mass deleting of existing hanja on pages would, in my view, cause more problems than it solves. Due to the kind of content I work on (these days mainly scientists and researchers as their contents don't get as much focus), I usually add hanja when I see it on some award posting (award website, press release, news article). I will occasionally find it on their Korean Wiki page and move it over and I typically add a note of such in the edit summary. I never use Namuwiki as Korean friends in years past mentioned contents are often tongue in cheek (comedy) so I wouldn't trust Namuwiki for that reason alone. If my information on that website is incorrect, especially as a lot of time as passed and I wouldn't be surprised if my information is out of date, please let me know. Considering the discussion here, I'll get in the habit of adding a citation for when I add hanja in the future. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Category:Wikipedia articles needing hanja: I actually once proposed that personal names not be added to that category (see here), but someone opposed. 172.56.232.253 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am going to remove "!" from the hanja parameters of personal names in Template:Infobox Korean name (= remove personal names from Category:Wikipedia articles needing hanja).
  1. No one (except probably only one person) really adds "!" for an unknown hanja name.
  2. When people remove an unreliable/unsourced hanja name, they almost never add "!".
  3. I also noticed that some people even remove existing "!"s.
In other words, adding "!" for an unknown hanja name is effectively a dead practice. 172.56.232.191 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Successfully deprecated the effectively dead practice of adding "!" for an unknown hanja name.
Some interesting cases I noticed: some people don't even know what "!" for a hanja parameter means (examples: [1], [2], [3]). 172.56.232.191 (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting case I recently noticed: the Kim So-hyun article currently gives 金所泫 as her hanja name, even though one of the cited sources in that article is an interview in which she directly gave her hanja name which is different from that (see Kim So-hyun#cite note-tenasia-1). 172.56.232.253 (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the only instances where someone under the age of 30 has explicitly stated their hanja name in a reliable source and someone still decided to just wing it and make it up... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
金所泫 seems to be what is used in Chinese sources, it's how it's written on Chinese wikipedia etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, people don't even bother to check the directly cited source.

  • The Son Na-eun article currently gives 孫娜恩 with a reference right next to it, but that reference actually gives 孫나은.
  • The Bang Min-ah article currently gives 方珉雅 with a reference right next to it, but that reference actually gives 方珉娥.
    1. The change from 方珉娥 to 方珉雅 was made at 07:58, 2 October 2017.
    2. The cited page was alive as of 16:57:13 of that day (see this)
      • That page has been moved to here. Click on the second image right below "입력 : 2010.11.23 20:48" and you will see 方珉娥.
      • So, when the change from 方珉娥 to 方珉雅 was made, it was possible to check that the cited source actually gives 方珉娥.

172.56.232.193 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed both of those. RachelTensions (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did update the MOS cos I believe we should not have to cite Hanja for common dictionary definitions like Korean tea ceremony. 2406:3003:2006:26BE:A450:E1A3:8588:F335 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNSOURCED, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Even if something is in dictionaries, we shouldn't rely on people's word for that; instead people should cite the dictionaries themselves as evidence that the term is in there.
Tl;dr basically everything except for knowledge that's nearly universal (e.g. the sky is blue) or clearly derivable (e.g. 2 apples and 2 pears -> there were 4 pieces of fruit) needs a ref. seefooddiet (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not overdo it too. I think for cases like the Hanja for Busan and Gyeongbokgung the phrase Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:... material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, applies. Having citiations for all Hanja in all Korea-related articles will look aesthetically unappealing. 2406:3003:2006:26BE:247B:D80E:E6B3:C8DD (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this rule is really unlikely to be fully enforced. Probably tens of thousands of pages use Hanja, and our WikiProject has bigger priorities than sourcing all these things at the moment imo.
Also I don't think it'd look unappealing; it's just a ref. seefooddiet (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't intend for a rule to be fully enforced, maybe you should just specify the part that you really mean. Kanguole 10:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend for it to be enforced, offering the user a de facto compromise seefooddiet (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really need to specifically call out that certain things don't need to be sourced. What we could do is call out that hanja for people's names especially needs to be sourced. RachelTensions (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still weighing what to do. I think sourcing all Hanja is/should be mandatory per overall Wikipedia guidelines. Also, even for non name terms, the issues relating to other Sinosphere country Chinese characters apply, which adds to need for sourcing.
We could highlight separately that it's especially needed for people names, but if it's mandatory everywhere idk if we need to highlight? seefooddiet (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing regarding hanja names: Some Chinese-language sources claim that a certain Chinese-character name is "正名" (correct name), but I would argue that such claims do not make the Chinese-character name more reliable, and that people still should avoid citing Chinese-language sources for Korean hanja names.

  • That could be "正名" in Chinese-language context only. It is possible to go by different Chinese-character names in Chinese and in Korean.
  • If we formally accept Chinese-language sources for Korean hanja names, we have to determine which Chinese-language sources are reliable (i.e. Chinese-language version of WP:KO/RS is needed). Evaluating Chinese-language sources just for Korean hanja names adds an extra burden for little practical gain.

172.56.232.191 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just a note, I think in general for {{Infobox Korean name}} for entertainers with stage names, we should do:

  • hangul = current legal name
  • hangulborn = legal name at birth
  • hangulstage = stage name

Currently, a number of pages like Defconn have stage name in the hangul param. I'll make a point of changing this to be more consistent going forward. seefooddiet (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed these two different usages of that template:
1. As what Seefooddiet wrote above
  • hangul = current legal name
  • hangulborn = legal name at birth
  • hangulstage = stage name
2.
  • hangul = stage name
  • hangulborn = current legal name
Using the same parameters in the same template for two different usages is confusing to readers. Editors should go with #1. 172.56.232.193 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed by seafooddiet. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to codify this in the MOS btw. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I made some fixes regarding this issue (example), but what I did is not complete. Sometimes it is difficult to find whether someone legally changed their name or is just going by their stage name while their legal name has not been changed.
  2. This issue does not only exist in articles about people in the entertainment industry. Articles about modern writers who go/went by pen names have this issue as well (e.g. Pak Mok-wol – legal name 박영종, pen name (박)목월).
    • One of the reasons for this is that there is no parameter specifically for a pen name.
  3. The fundamental issue with this is that the birth name (hangulborn) parameter itself is causing confusion. Probably this parameter should just be entirely removed.
    • Some people have been putting strange values to the birth name parameter. For example, "왕기, later 왕전" in Gongmin of Goryeo. How does this even make sense?
172.56.232.88 (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is hairy, but I'm skeptical of removing the birth name parameter altogether; it's widely used and it's still useful, just difficult to use with high consistency. Similar can be said of many other parameters in other major infoboxes; ambiguously and inconsistently used but still useful if used well.
Will keep thinking about this and willing to hear further arguments for deleting the parameter. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But at least for now, I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Infobox Korean name should say something about people not in the entertainment industry but do/did not go by their legal names (like writers using pen names). 172.56.232.88 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
don't quite understand your phrasing; what do you want it to say? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant: that section should be about any person in any field using any pseudonym, not just about people in the entertainment industry using stage names. 172.56.232.166 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would like to add one more thing about the birth name parameter.
If the birth name parameter is not going to be removed, I think at least the parameter name should be changed to something that can be unambiguously understood as "former legal name". 172.56.232.166 (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic romanization

[edit]

Just modified the MOS to reflect the fact that we have semi-automatic romanization now, via {{Infobox Korean name/auto}}, {{Korean/auto}}, and {{Ko-translit}}.

I think the broad strokes of these modifications should be uncontroversial; have been discussed publicly for a while now. But very open to feedback. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanja lead

[edit]

MOS:HANJALEAD I think needs slight revision.

  • For a concept like Busan, currently MOS:HANJALEAD is telling us we should show Hanja, as it has been significant before and after 1945. But my gut is telling me that's not necessary or helpful.
  • Kim Ku was also important before and after the division, and my gut is telling me Hanja is good for his lead.

Think the rule could be adjusted to like "Show Hanja if concept was significant before the division and now no longer exists".

I doubt this will be that controversial, so will boldly change MOS. But if you disagree lmk asap; happy to revert. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah actually shoot; what about ancient books that still exist? My new update would mean no hanja shown for them, and that's not right.
Will keep thinking. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok think I got it.
"Show Hanja if a concept was significant before the division. If it is still significant today (for reasons that are not predominantly interest in its historical significance), do not show Hanja".
Examples:
Should show Hanja
  • Gyeongbokgung is significant before the division. It is still significant today as a tourist destination. However, its current relevance is predominantly due to interest in its historical significance.
  • Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty similar logic as above.
  • Kim Ku is significant before and after the division. He is still significant today as a cultural symbol. However, his significance today is predominantly interest in his historical significance.
Should not show Hanja
  • Busan is significant before and after division, still significant, and not primarily due to its historical significance.
  • Seolleongtang same as above.
I think these thresholds are also good for addressing some holes in WP:KOREANNAME and MOS:KO-ROMAN. I may apply this threshold there too. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems an improvement if still flexible, although any general rule for people would be overruled if the individual in question prominently used/uses Hanja. CMD (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I was thinking of that. I'm going to word it to make clear this is a general principle and can have exceptions. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of resolving this kind of issue is always only showing hangul (no hanja, RR, or MR in any case) in the lead paragraph. If hanja, RR, or MR is needed, just always let the Infobox Korean name template take care of them.
  1. When people create an article, they usually copy the format that already exists on another page, rather than checking the MOS.
  2. Determining whether hanja is important or significant for a certain subject can be subjective or controversial.
172.56.232.253 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is too harsh a measure imo; showing these things is almost always helpful and rarely significantly inaccurate to the point of being harmful. Also in general, showing stuff only in infobox and not in article text is discouraged; we're technically in violation of that sometimes but we're in an extreme situation where we have a lot of information. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HANJAHANZI modifications

[edit]

Two things I'd like to change in this section.

First, [4] see this. In Korean, this film is called "Happy New Year" using a transliteration of the English phrase into Korean: 해피 뉴 이어　(Haepi nyu ieo). However, the Hanja on the article was given as "新年快乐", which is a Chinese-language phrase (not used in Korean) that means "Happy New Year". Think should prohibit doing things like this.

Second, [5] see this. IP user (regular on this talk page; one of the co-authors of the semi-automatic romanization module) deleted the use of several Chinese character phrases here that function similarly to Kun'yomi in Japanese. I think their decision is likely correct here, but wording it in MOS is tricky. I think Hangul/Hanja pairs should tightly correspond, rather than being linked by meaning. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding something like this?
The reading of hanja must match the contemporary Korean reading written in hangul.
172.56.232.109 (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will think abt; wording still tricky. Even in your example there's an imprecision, "the contemporary Korean reading" implies a singular reading, but there can be multiple. MOS language difficult grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both are unnecessary. I'm not sure if the first one needs more MOS, though. It's fails WP:V as WP:OR. The second is tricky, but removal was justified. As I understand the situation, putting several purported Hanja in the lead when no single one is certain doesn't accurately portray the nuance of the situation. But again, not necessarily a MOS issue, just bad writing. Toadspike [Talk] 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say MOS helpful because it's not obvious if/how this is WP:OR; having MOS is shortcut for explanation. Not obvious because one needs to know the relationship between Hanja and Hanzi to know it's OR. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 romanization display rules

[edit]

Thinking about two changes to guidelines on when to show romanization.

  1. Consider not showing excessively long romanizations in article text (excluding infoboxes; if infobox korean name or similar present, romanizations should always be shown there). They're hardly readable or intelligible to anyone, and they're really bulky. Example: [6] ignoring the egregiously incorrect romanizations, how many people would the long romanizations in the lead be useful for? Really few, and they're bulky.
  2. Do not show romanizations of titles of works in article text (still can show in infobox) if the titles are already reasonably close transliterations of English-language terms. For example, [7]; how many people is "Byutipul Seondei" useful for? I don't think very many. Another example: Blackpink: The Movie; is it helpful to many if we show "Beullaekpingkeu: deo mubi" in the lead? I'd argue it isn't.

Think these may be controversial so want to get consensus grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that displaying RR and MR itself should be done sparingly. I would like to propose the following:
  • No RR and MR at all
    1. in the lead paragraph (regardless of the length of the romanization, and regardless of how "unorthodox" or "nonstandard" the common form in English is). If RR and MR are needed, always use Infobox Korean name (or another infobox template).
    2. anywhere (= including both in-line templates and infobox templates) for any word or phrase that is
      1. usually translated (e.g. names of government agencies)
      2. a mere hangul transcription of non-Korean word or phrase (e.g. 뷰티풀 선데이)
172.56.232.253 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justification missing from your comment. Why do you feel this is better than status quo? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To make the lead paragraph of an article less cluttered.
  2. For any word or phrase that is
    1. usually translated, what matters is the meaning (and that is why the word or phrase is usually translated); romanization is not really important.
    2. a mere hangul transcription of non-Korean word or phrase: there is no point of showing a Korean-language romanization for a non-Korean word or phrase.
172.56.232.253 (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Hangul transcriptions of non-Korean terms are unnecessary in the lead.
I'm not sure about IP's broader attack on RR in the article body and infoboxes; it might stray a little too far from the principle of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE that nearly all info should be in the article.
We transliterate Cyrillic nearly everywhere, even when they are basically identical to the article title (see the second footnote after the name at Gorbachev or Stalin, two GAs). Sometimes readers just want to know how a person from that country would say the term, without wanting to learn the alphabet themselves. As a reader, I also find it interesting to know when a subject's Korean name is the transliterated English name; though Beautiful Sunday obviously has bigger problems, there currently wouldn't be any way for a reader who doesn't know Hangul to see this. Toadspike [Talk] 14:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will respond more in depth later (I agree and disagree with parts of both your and IP's arguments), but noting that since Russian people don't have language infoboxes the romanizations in lead may be more important for them. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Hangul transcriptions of non-Korean terms are unnecessary in the lead.
I did not say this.
Sometimes readers just want to know how a person from that country would say the term, without wanting to learn the alphabet themselves. As a reader, I also find it interesting to know when a subject's Korean name is the transliterated English name
This kind of information is just something that some people may find "interesting"; it usually does not help understand the subject. 172.56.232.109 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with IP that interestingness isn't adequate motivation for inclusion in first parentheses. The first parentheses should be for vital information, especially for navigation, and continually pushed to be more concise/readable. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should minimize the impact of excessively long romanizations, especially if there might be multiple of them. For example, in the article for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing does not include the pinyin romanizations of the Chinese name for the Olympics. Alternatively, in the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, the article uses Explanatory footnotes for both the Japanese text and the Hepburn romanization. I disagree with the notion of not displaying romanizations in the lede paragraph as suggested by the IP. Not only could it possibly violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as Toadspike suggests, but also some infoboxes are extremely large (ex. Park Chung Hee), and would require some scrolling just to find the romanization. If redundancy is really a concern, it would be more efficient to get rid of the infoboxes rather than the other way around. I personally think keeping both are fine. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion of not displaying romanizations in the lede paragraph as suggested by the IP. & If redundancy is really a concern, it would be more efficient to get rid of the infoboxes rather than the other way around.
I disagree with this. A systematic romanization is not really something important that needs to be shown in the lead paragraph. For Park Chung Hee, what matters is that he is commonly known as "Park Chung Hee" in English and the native name is 박정희; the fact that 박정희 is "Bak Jeonghui" in RR is not really important. So an infobox is more suitable for a systematic romanization such as RR. 172.56.232.109 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CountHacker's point about large infoboxes.
I disagree with IP's point about RR not ever being useful in first parentheses. Imo RR's primary function in first paragraph would be to aid in navigation; making sure you're on the right page within a few seconds.
Sometimes people use significantly unusual romanizations, like Syngman Rhee. Having romanizations there can (but not always) aid in determining if you're on the right page.
For Rhee and Park, I know first hand that Koreans romanize their names in a variety of ways. For them, the WP:COMMONNAME on enwiki could be confusing. COMMONNAMEs aren't necessarily universal spellings, or even widely known in Korea. There are plenty of cases where some spellings are common outside of Korea, while a completely different spelling is common within Korea (e.g. "Hangeul" in SK vs Hangul outside).
I'm currently tempted to word guidance something like this:
Include romanization(s) in the first parentheses only if they are likely notably helpful to readers. For example, if the Korean term is significantly different from the main term, a romanization could aid in quickly helping the reader determine if they're on the right page. Do not include romanizations in the following cases:
1. the main term is already a close, perfect, or adequate match to the romanization. This includes cases where the Korean is itself a transliteration of some English term. For example, the Korean title of Hush (TV series) is 허쉬: Heoswi
2. the romanization is excessively lengthy (footnote: for excessively long romanizations, consider putting them in {{Infobox Korean name/auto}} instead.)
@CountHacker @Toadspike and IP, thoughts? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first guidance, we don't need to romanize English (or foreign) loanwords back into Roman characters. Exceptions perhaps could be people with non-Korean full names notable for their work in Korea (ex. Ricky Kim/리키 김). For the second guidance, I think romanization should be allowed only if in the footnote. Also, it would be best to define what "excessively lengthy" exactly is to avoid potential headaches in the future. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not saying the above because I know Korean and hangul. I know almost nothing about Arabic, but even if Wikipedia articles containing Arabic terms do not provide any systematic romanization for each Arabic term in Arabic-related templates at all, I would not complain. 172.56.232.109 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]