Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles

message: Hi, I'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), and wanted to get more eyes on it. It's related to allowing special characters (namely for McCune–Reischauer) in titles.
See the talk post here. toobigtokale (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossposting 

message: I am thinking about removing Wiktionary links in the following cases. Any comments?
# When the article is about the term itself (e.g.  in the Hodu-gwaja article). This is like having the wikt:computer link in the computer article; not very informative.
# When the article title is already descriptive enough (e.g.  in South Korean won; XX in the "XX Girls' High School" article)
# Place names (e.g. 서울 (Seoul), 부산 (Busan), etc.; this includes names of geographical features (mountains, islands, valleys, rivers, seas, etc.)). Some place names are dictionary entries, but the dictionary definition for a place name is usually nothing more than "a place name (in a certain region)".
# Generic terms constantly found in multiple articles (e.g 한국/대한민국/조선/조선민주주의인민공화국 (Korea), 고속도로 (expressway), 대학교 (university), etc.)
# Topics that can be better covered in an encyclopedia than in a dictionary (e.g. Sungkyunkwan is more informative than wikt:성균관). In a case like this, if you want to add a link to the hangul text, it would be better to add a link to the Wikipedia article (e.g. 성균관).
# Titles of creative works (books, movies, TV shows, songs, etc.). For these, providing a translation of the entire title is better. And some titles are long (see also the next item).
# Long phrases/sentences (e.g. 한반도의 평화와 번영, 통일을 위한 판문점 선언 in Panmunjom Declaration). For a long phrase/sentence, providing a translation of the entire phrase/sentence would be much more helpful than several links in a row (and Wikipedia does not have to break down each lexical item in a phrase/sentence).
# When the article is already explaining the meaning (e.g.  means Y; Literal meaning: Y; lit. Y; etc.)
# Korean terms written in two or more hanja characters (e.g. 博物館). Wiktionary just gives "Hanja form of hangul" (i.e. a soft redirect to the corresponding hangul entry; see wikt:博物館#Korean for an example). This policy in Wiktionary will highly unlikely be changed in the future, since Korean is almost always written in hangul today.
# Any other cases where a reader will not find anything beyond what they can figure out on Wikipedia
The following are my main criteria for the above:
* After clicking a link to Wiktionary, will a reader find anything beyond what they can figure out on Wikipedia?
* Avoid several links in a row. They can be rather inconvenient.
By the way, in general, I think Wiktionary links should only be added (1) when it can be difficult to understand running text without a Wiktionary link; or (2) in linguistic contexts (e.g. when the topic is about lexical items). It seems that MOS:OVERLINK does not directly say something about Wiktionary links, but I started to think that a lot of (if not most) existing Wiktionary links are actually overlinking (especially when a reader does not find anything beyond from those links). Wikipedia is not a website for language learning; it does not have to provide a link for every single non-English lexical item. 172.56.232.35 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support; think all of this makes sense. This is toobigtokale btw. 187.147.66.231 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: It has been more than a month since I posted this, and no one opposed. I will carry this out someday. 172.56.232.35 (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking about removing Wiktionary links in some cases