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. Most of the argument was split between whether Ri Sol Ju was the WP:COMMONNAME or not. Neither those for or against the proposal were able to overcome the arguments of the other side. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Sol-ju → Ri Sol Ju – WP:COMMONNAME is established for the non-hyphenated name (Ri Sol Ju), which is step 1 of WP:KOREANNAME. Evidence here (Google Books Ngram Viewer), as "Ri Sol Ju" is used in books more than "Ri Sol-ju". Please note that Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung, Kim Yo Jong were moved from hyphenated name in similar contexts; and for North Korean biography articles, such moves are in case-by-case basis. TCU9999 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

1. Common name is not established. Google NGram is a bad source. It says: "Replaced Ri Sol-ju with [Ri Sol - ju] to match how we processed the books." Then you click on "Ri Sol - ju" it doesn't show any books! The data is being changed by the algorithm behind the scenes. The same thing happens when you Google search "Ri Sol-ju" it will treat the dash like a wildcard bringing up versions with and without dash. Conclusion: Google is a bad source for determining this question.
2. The existence of other articles is a logical fallacy. There are also many articles that use dash. And where the arguments there also based on "other stuff exists"?
3. WP:KOREANNAME is a guideline - but it does not override the policy WP:CRITERIA which lists five criteria for naming an article. The KOREANNAME guideline ignores 4 of those policy criteria. It is a broken guideline that attempts to end-run around policy. The nomination here, elsewhere, and in KOREANNAME do not recognize naming policy.

-- GreenC 16:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @GreenC This is perhaps a better conversation for the talk page of WP:NCKO, but your understanding of WP:KOREANNAME isn't quite right and the implication that we're intentionally trying to circumvent policy is strange and needlessly combative. The design of KOREANNAME is meant to account for the five criteria; we considered them while designing it. What part of the five criteria does it not account for? Maybe naturalness is the only thing for North Korean names, but considering the romanization of Korean is already wonky I think the argument could go either way. seefooddiet (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mentioned "Naturalness" as one of the CRITERIA, another is "Consistency". Does the guideline recognize these criteria? I agree this is not the place to discuss changing the guideline, but the guideline is making the argument that the only CRITERIA that matters is COMMONNAME which is a flawed position. -- GreenC 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it does account for consistency. The romanization guidelines given in step 3 are consistent. Could you walk back your claim that we're intentionally trying to subvert the MOS? seefooddiet (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "intentional subversion" is unnecessarily strong language; if this "end-run around policy" was intentional, an oversight or subconscious wishful thinking I do not know, but I think the more important thing is that the guideline should link to the five criteria and provide some kind of explanation how it fits into the larger policy framework because obviously it is presenting a problem as currently written. You can just ignore what I am saying as bad faith, or you could assume good faith and use the opportunity of my feedback to tighten up and improve your guideline. -- GreenC 18:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a broken guideline that attempts to end-run around policy. Is there any ambiguity to this phrasing? You assumed bad faith from our community. Whatever, let's use the phrasing "end-run around policy" and drop the discussion about conduct. If you're seeing an issue I recommend you propose a fix on WT:NCKO. seefooddiet (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ROMANKO#Why have these steps for WP:KOREANNAME? Just wrote this, relevant here seefooddiet (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose wasn;t this idea rejected recently? Too many move requests are getting to be disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: North Korean names do not use the hyphen.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does appear to be the case, the only official North Korean newspaper in English, Pyongyang Times, does not use hyphen. Is it preferred we follow the style of North Korea? I'm not sure how much weight to give the "official" argument because lots of things on Wikipedia don't conform to official usage. -- GreenC 16:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently we don't use north korean romanization on wikipedia; see WP:ROMANKO for context. I'm considering pushing to allow it but it will be a painful process. Virtually nobody on the site understands properly how the system works. Its use will be filled with mistakes. seefooddiet (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting -- however given the number of NCKO page moves were seeing that are turning up contentious, perhaps another route would be to work on the NCKO talk page to better adjust the guidelines to help make these move discussions less contentious and more clear from a consistent standpoint. Otherwise, also simply relisting for more time to work through this currently no-consensus discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The romanization of Korean is fundamentally contentious outside of Wikipedia. Even in the best case where we reflect the outside world, these discussions will remain contentious. All we can hope to do is make them clearer. I've actively tried getting more people to make posts on NCKO to improve it, and they don't once they realize the factors explained in this essay are the minefield they're stepping into. I've read hundreds of past move discussions over the last 20 years and they all struggle with the problems in that link. No easy solution in sight. seefooddiet (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not convinced of the merits in this case nor the reasonability of this case by case approach. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Jack Upland and nom. Sources predominantly use "Ri Sol Ju" and that is really in many cases the standard for North Korea anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposer. However, I think a broader consensus about the South Korean-styled hyphenation for North Korean and pre-1945 Korean person names is needed. TCU9999 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The case for common name in English-language reliable sources has not been made. Web searches demonstrate a mix of styles with and without hyphen and with and without capitals on the third syllable[1][2][3]. Ngrams data is refuted as faulty. DrKay (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the alternative link for Ngram data. In this alternative link, the non-hyphenated name currently appears to be used more than the hyphenated name in books. TCU9999 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It says "Error! Search for "Ri Sol-ju" yielded only one result. Error! Search for "Ri Sol Ju" yielded only one result." That's a 50:50 split between the two. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]