Talk:Kwon

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthroponymy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 3 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Gwon to Kwon. The result of the discussion was moved.

Vague Description

"Chinese : variant of Guan 1.

"Chinese : variant of Guan 2."

What is the author trying to say here? It's very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulk90 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Kwon vs. Gwon

When concerning the spelling of the Gwon family name, everything here is transliterated as "Kwon" this is based on the McCune–Reischauer romanization system which has been fazed out as the official romanization system since the year 2000. In its place is the Revised Romanization system which has since been the standard of transliteration. According to Wikipedia Guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), "unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise...family names are romanized per Revised Romanization (RR) for South Koreans and pre-1945 Koreans, or McCune–Reischauer (MR) for North Koreans" As such I would like to carry out correcting this page. However, some of these names belong to modern Korean people, as such, I am unsure as to which prefer the "Kwon" over "Gwon". those who are knowledgeable about these preferences, please share this information so that a name is not unfairly changed. Sanctusune (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 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. Per consensus, the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME. The opposing voice contends that the Revised Romanization system should be used as it is the official system, however, evidence presented shows that that the McCune-Reischauer Romanization version has a more widespread usage. It is also shown that there are exceptions to WP:NCKO that are not listed in there, which indicates that the exception list in there is not exhuastive as raised by Adumbrativus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gwon → Kwon – Move back to Kwon as per WP:COMMONNAME. The romanization Kwon is clearly favoured over Gwon. According to WP:NCKO, names should be should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources instead of automatically using Revised Romanization. Viewing the list of notable people on the page, 100% of the post-1945 figures use the romanization of “Kwon”. A 2009 study done by the National Institute of the Korean Language shows that a majority of people with this surname have translated it as Kwon compared to Gwon (85.5% for Kwon, 6.9% for Gwon as seen on page 63 of the pdf). A Google NGram contrasting Kwon and Gwon shows that Kwon has a huge lead over Gwon. Looking at the pageview analysis, moving the page from Kwon to Gwon in January 2020 caused the page views to go down after a page move to more uncommon name. The page views still have not recovered to the page views before the page move. CountHacker (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The use of WP:COMMONNAME applies to those names used by specific individuals and places and therefore does not apply to the scope of this specific article since this deals with the general name. In the case general names are used one must use the Wikipedia Guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) which uses the Revised Romanization system. It is natural that the McCune–Reischauer Romanization 권 which is transliterated as Kwon would be more often used because it has been in use since at least 1939. However, the Revised Romanization system, which was introduced in the year 2000, has had a comparatively smaller use in the same time frame but it is now not just the preferred way to transliterate Hangul (Korean) but the official way to transliterate The Hangul writing system into English in Korea. The official textbooks used by South Korea and the museums of South Korea have all transitioned to using Gwon instead of Kwon as the government slowly switches to the Revised Romanization system for when its language is transliterated into English. While the statistics on name usages are correct, that is to be expected for a romanization system that has been in use for 60 years. As time goes on, Gwon will inevitably replace Kwon. On top of that Kwon is not on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) exception list so the change is necessary. People born from the year 2000 onward with the surname 권 also have the official English transliteration as Gwon as well following the Korean governments preferred use of the Revised Romanization system. Changing back to Kwon will not only cause confusion with those articles already tranistioned to Gwon from Kwon, but will also go against Wikipedia policy concerning Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). Sanctusune (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:MOSAT, it states that " In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." In this case, I see no clear benefit in using "Gwon" instead of "Kwon" other than the fact it is the official romanization used by the southern half of the Korean peninsula. Regarding Revised Romanization, it was not created to apply to family names. According the website by its own creators (the National Institute of the Korean Language), it states that "Transcriptions of family names will be established additionally." While it is possible that in the future, the usage of "Gwon" becomes more popular than "Kwon", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should use the currently most common name, which is "Kwon". CountHacker (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true for such family names that are used by McCune–Reischauer Romanization such as Park, Lee, and Kim. This is why those pages have not been changed and why they are specifically mentioned as exceptions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). 권 is no such exception. Of course there may need to be more opinions to weigh in on this matter, as of right now I would say the argument for changing it is not sufficiently convincing. Perhaps others would disagree and give a different point of view whether for or against this change, because this particular family name is not as common as the aforementioned Park (Bak), Lee (Yi), or Kim (Gim) and yet not as obscure as the family name Sun (Son). If it is indeed determined that Kwon is preferred, then it should also be added to the exception list in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). I suppose time will tell on the matter. (I should clarify that I am not saying that the family name Sun (son) is obscure in general but rather in comparison to the aforementioned Korean family names). Sanctusune (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the assessment that Kwon is the significantly more widely used romanization, which makes it more natural and recognizable. The specific mention of Kim, Lee, and Park at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) does not mean that this list is (or ought to be) exhaustive. See also Shin (Korean surname) (July 2022 RM closed as no consensus to move) or Choi (Korean surname). Adumbrativus (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kwon corresponds to its established English spelling. Sawol (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clear common spelling in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nom convincingly demonstrates Kwon to be the common spelling for this name among English sources. See also the arguments laid out by Adumbrativus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Sanctusune. — AjaxSmack 05:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.