phonemic

Place names side, I like that Korean orthography is morpho-phonemic rather than striving for purely phonemic spelling.

Yes, there are phonemic differences between accents within a language: but there is a change in the voice quality.

Voice distinctions are allophonic in Korean; the phonemic difference between ㄱ and ㅋ is purely aspiration.

Russian is indeed not strictly phonetic, thought it has a phonemic orthography to a degree.

The blocks also aren't purely phonemic, either, since e..g verb conjugation postfixes can often attach a final consonant to a stem's last block.

It involved discarding four letters, adding a horde of new letter combinations to represent underlying forms, and a drastic shift from purely phonemic to morphophonemic script.

Those tests don't cover most of the test discussed here, though, since there's no assessment of phonemic processing abilities, resilience to distractions, etc.

Stress in English is phonemic however, viz.

Purely phonemic spelling is sort of overrated.

For tonal languages, the use of tone as a distinguishing characteristic is similar to any other phonemic characteristic you would typically have to distinguish words in any other non-tonal language.

Altho, arguably the phonemic representation is more flexible than the pictographical alternative --and we see that with pinyin and romaji serving a purpose in pictographical writing systems.

However, the orthography isn't purely phonemic but rather morpho-phonemic and the morpheme boundaries happen to line up with block boundaries a lot - but in some sense most applications of the Latin alphabet aren't any less abstract; English orthography is anything but consistently phonemic after all.

Roughly speaking, "phonetic" refers purely to the sounds, while "phonemic" goes into the more abstract level of grouping the sounds that are considered mere variations of a single sound to the speakers of that language.