User talk:Asukite/Archives/2022/February

Moves of "Heo Joon-ho" to "Huh Joon-ho" and "Jo In-sung" to "Zo In-sung"

Although official names should not essentially be considered the common one, WP:BLPSELFPUB sates that official information self-published by a person or their agency can be considered reliable for some information, and WP:SPNC seems to suggest giving some weight to it regarding minor variants in name spellings, particularly where it mentions "when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed".

As well as sources close to the person himself, the Huh spelling is also used by the Korean Film Council and by the professionally-run VOD services Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV, Google Play, the Microsoft Store, AMC, and OnDemandKorea. Viki uses Heo, but that's less mainstream and less established in the field than Apple, Amazon, Google, and Netflix are.

Huh is used on the professionally-released English-language posters and disc covers for all the movies which have one that his name gets on to from at least as far back as 2008: Escape from Mogadishu, Innocence, Default, The Divine Weapon. Not one, from at least this period, uses the Heo spelling (when I go back a bit further, I see Hur being used, but still not Heo).

When I search Google News, the Heo spelling brings up results primarily from celebrity fan culture sites such as Soompi and HELLOKPOP, and NME (which, though a level above, is primarily about music rather than film and TV). The Huh spelling brings up results from Screen International, Deadline Hollywood, The Korea Herald, The Korea Times, and Newsweek.

Though its policies advise against giving undue weight to primary sources, Wikipedia's policies do stipulate giving more weight to sources that are more established and known to be high quality for the subject matter in question (see WP:SOURCE), rather than simply what is most common.

Because of all the above, I found your closure of the movie decision without any more opinions unwarranted, though this is probably down to me not giving a wide enough range of sources less directly connected with the subject in my initial request to back it up.

Much the same applies to closing the request to movie Jo In-sung to Zo In-sung.

Jo might be used more judged by sheer number of news articles, but Zo is used by the Korean Film Council,The Korea Times, The Korea Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily, Koreabizwire, Screen, The Hollywood Reporter,The New York Times, and Newsweek.

The nearest to recent reliable, high-quality, established sources using the Jo spelling I can find are The Independent Singapore in August 2021 and Forbes in October 2021, which I'd imagine are not as high-quality for information about Korean people as South-Korea-based newspapers, nor as high-quality for information about film and TV as publications dedicated to the industry.

Most of those articles using Jo are all from Soompi. So please consider quality and variety when determining common usage, not only quantity.

I should have also pointed out in this particular case that the article was previously moved to Zo In-sung with discussion (although the discussion was about hyphenation rather than romanization), then later moved to Jo In-sung without discussion. Tempjrds (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your incredibly thorough message! There is clearly a lot more to the matter than the discussion covered. It's unfortunate that you did not apply any of this research to the discussion itself, as it may have garnered more support for your viewpoint. When closing the discussions, I saw that they had sat dormant for some time and had been relisted already. Given this, and the lack of any argumentative replies to the existing oppose votes, I took the discussions as having been ready to close. If you feel strongly that the pages should have been moved instead, it would have helped if you would have replied to the opposers in the discussions to help generate a more thorough and productive discourse.

Granted, it's possible a "no consensus" closure may have been more appropriate given the lack of participation, and so I am not opposed to new discussions being opened, and would even endorse it, but I can't speak for the opposers from the discussion as they might disagree (I can ping them and ask if they oppose to re-opening and relisting the discussion, at which point we can also notify relevant wikiprojects, and I will abstain from the discussions at that point). Alternatively, if you are still unhappy with the outcome, you are free to open new discussions at move review where the close can be overturned or the discussion re-opened, hopefully with more participation.

When closing discussions, I do basic research based on each argument to help weigh its merit. Any further review than that will likely cause me to discover an opinion of my own, in which case it's more appropriate to reply instead. Sorry for getting in the way, and I hope this helps. ASUKITE 23:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't blame you my lack of participation. I have other things to do in my life than editing Wikipedia and I'm not able to keep checking on the status of the discussions I started as often as I'd like, and I evidently left it too late in both these cases. I'm also more used to editing articles about Japanese than Korean people, and WikiProject Japan does advise giving weight to what romanization a person personally prefers, so I'm used to thinking that demonstrating that is enough (WikiProject Korea doesn't have such a rule, though WP:SPNC seems to suggest a similar preference universally). The help pages recommended discussing a closure with the closer on their talk page before doing anything else, so that's what I've done here. I'd rather use whatever is the least aggressive method for reconsidering both decisions, taking into consideration WP:SPNC and the quality and variety of sources (and not only number) this time. Tempjrds (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, Colin M, (Not pinging the IP because I can't, but I'll leave a talk message), as you participated in the above two move requests on Jo In-sung and Heo Joon-ho, I wanted to ask if you would oppose reopening and relisting the move discussions I closed for Tempjrds, who has provided more explanation that can be added to the discussions, in order to give time for others to consider / reconsider the moves. Just hoping to avoid some red tape, otherwise I will encourage Tempjrds to open a move review instead.. Thanks for considering - it's possible a no-consensus close may have been more appropriate, which also leaves new discussions as an option. ASUKITE 15:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would not object to them being reopened. (As a sidenote, I would strongly discourage Tempjrds from taking either of these to MRV. MRV is limited to evaluating the reasonableness of a close based on the discussion that took place - it is not a place to bring up and debate new evidence or policy angles. Given the state of the RM discussions when they were closed, I think there is basically a 0% chance that MRV would find that Asukite had closed inappropriately.) Colin M (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I am still new ish to the processes despite having closed a few discussions. I appreciate that and will keep in mind. That's 1/3 now, I'll wait a bit and see if we get another reply. ASUKITE 16:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to reopen them: it seems I may not have quite understood the situation. It might be helpful to leave a notification at WikiProject Korea in the hope of getting a bit more participation. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)