Talk:Gangwon

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Urgent message for User:Okay95[edit]

ALL the content and images in the Gangwon article that you have contributed is about to be deleted. This is being done for copyright violation reasons. Some of the content appears to have copied from other website(s). This is unacceptable behaviour. Unless you can explain where the content originates from, and what right you have to copy it, ALL the content and images that you have contributed could be deleted without further warning. You need to discuss this now, before you make another edit. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:44, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)

Copied content[edit]

Some of the florid prose ("sure to excite the most rabid aficionado"?) is almost certainly copied from somewhere else -- but where? Google can't find it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:59, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Yeah, that's what I was wondering, too. It seems to be copied in toto rather than edited and re-edited, but I can't find any clues. --(WT-en) Evan 01:00, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
You're wondering where an extlink happy contributor gets his stuff? CLICK THE LINK LUKE! It's reworded, but it's still plagerism. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:50, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
The link is http://eng.gwd.go.kr/ -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:32, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
User:(WT-en) Okay95 has posted on User talk:(WT-en) Okay95 a fax from the Gangwon Provincial Government. I am of the opinion that it permits the text of the website to be copied but NOT the images. Can others confirm this opinion? -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:06, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)
It says "pictures". --(WT-en) Evan 11:27, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)
And the fax is quite correct in stating that the GPG retains the copyright of the images. I think the bigger problem is that the fax gives Ms. Hong permission to use the content, without saying anything about the CC by-sa licensing. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:33, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)

[[Image:2 permission form.JPG|thumb|550px|Fax Permission]]

Regions hierachy[edit]

Gangwon-do actually breaks down into a number of Si and gun (counties and cities?). From the provincial website dropdown box - (which is a very bad way of promoting your region because all the URL's are probably hidden from google and implies poor website design) I obtained this list of regions and their websites:

I am not sure if the Si or gun should be part of the region name. It would be useful to list these under the Region section in Gangwon and move a lot of the information in Gangwon into individual region and city articles. However there are probably still too many and it might need to be broken down further, like near the DMZ or North Gangwon and South Gangwon. However, I do not know enough to say what is best. Any thoughts? -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:07, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

-si is city, -gun is literally village, although both in Korea and Japan gun usually denotes large rural areas with little population. They should never be used in article titles.
At any rate, I don't think further division into subregions is necessary. The -sis should go under Cities and the villages should be omitted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:20, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
The Gangwon-do website has a map that indicates the -gun are counties (under road information). So I think the -guns should become regions. -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:05, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
My bad, you seem to be correct — in Japan the gun is a historical relic but in Korea they are indeed still used as districts covering multiple towns and villages ([1]). However, note that the cities and counties are exclusive, so eg. Hoengseong-gun does not include Hoengseong-si. This sounds pretty prone to confusion as a region hierarchy if you ask me... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:39, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

Updating for 2013[edit]

Looking at the history, this article has not been touched much since 2006! Additionally the 'style' issues have not been addressed at all for 7 years. I will copy edit this and some of the sub articles belonging to it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

After some work I am getting the article under control! I am providing an update just in case anyone is following this.
After cleaning up the listings, it appears many provide no indication of which town or area they belong to, there I need to check each one's location using Google and then move to the relevant town.
When this process is complete, we can rebuild the Gangwon region article into a useful one drawing on the best of all the towns. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and tagged the See and Do sections with {{movetocity}}, which was made for such cases and puts the page into a maintenance category, where others can find it and help out. Texugo (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Texugo ! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the history it looks like you've done a good job with Gangwon two months ago, 앤드루. And the article doesn't look as hair-rising as I remember it. Now there are a couple of Sees and Dos left in this article but as there doesn't seem to be any particular article to move them to I suggest we should leave them here. There are also too many cities in the list, I think we should move some of them down to Other destinations, and remove a few with very little content. Plus, most of what's in the "Outdoor recreation sports" doesn't include any contact or location information; I'll list the activities in a sentence or two and remove the fluff. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I got the article to a point and then decided to take a break :) Basically there are only two 'cities' in the province and the rest are actually tiny towns or villages that are widely dispersed. Do you have any ideas how to structure them better? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll remove destinations that are just "counties" from the Cities list - those who are usable or important like Pyeongchang I'll put on the Other destinations list. and move them to the other destinations list. I checked out "what links here" for each of them and no article links to (all but one of) them if they're deleted completely. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Another thing to consider is that some articles could probably have content removed and just point to the DMZ_(Korea) article instead. I wasn't sure about how to proceed with that because the DMZ covers more than just Gangwon province, however I think it still works. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we should be careful about moving things not really related to the Korean War or the current situation in the region into the DMZ article. What's in Goseong (Gangwon) could very well be merged into the DMZ article, though. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand although I have actually treated the DMZ as a kind of National Park article. The listings are either of interest because of the Korean War, the subsequent 50 year armistice or of the de-facto nature reserve aspect of the area. I think Cheorwon for example can just redirect to the relevant heading in the DMZ. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, when cleaning up the article I ran into a couple of other places that could be incorporated into the DMZ article as well, including Cheorwon. On the other hand something like the fun festivals I spent half an hour de-Konglishfying wouldn't really "fit" in there with the barbed wire and bunkers... ϒpsilon (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Good work :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Seorak-san_National_Park[edit]

Seorak-san_National_Park is a well defined article, and it seems there is a lot of content about this park in the Gangwon article that should really be merged into the park's article. Does anyone have any objection to this merge? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Connected Contributor[edit]

$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Korea Press Foundation & Gangwon Province for his contributions --책읽는달팽 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)