Talk:Jeju/Archive 2003-2012

EW~! This thing's pathetic. :-)

What's the best name for this article? Should it be disambiguated to prevent confusion over the island and the city (Not that scrolling down wouldn't reveal which article deals with which locality)? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:24, 2 July 2006 (EDT)

I think the current names are correct. Jeju is mostly known for the island as a whole, which is popular with beachgoers and honeymooners. Jeju City is an adminstrative center and not really a tourist destination. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:02, 2 July 2006 (EDT)

True....for now! dun dun DUN! (WT-en) Ojousama 09:00, 1 January 2008 (EST)

As I was saying, while "Jeju" could stand as both cities, I will create a separate page for Seogwipo, because that's where I live, there's enough to see in this city for a separate article, and so that's what I will write about. (WT-en) Ojousama 09:00, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised how little information there is about Jeju. I've tried to add some information but perhaps this article could do with cleaning up. I think Jeju is probably small enough to be covered by one page, but should the hotels be split by city instead of price range (since it isn't clear now which are in Jeju and which are in Seogwipo without looking at the addresses).(WT-en) MoshaosenJanuary 2009

Spammy edits

So the edits by User:(WT-en) Worknplay seem to be copied wholesale from [1], presumably legally. Unfortunately they're terrible in tone and context and need some severe editing down... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Je-Ju Island

I am an american who has been invited to visit Je-Ju Island with my Korean family (by marriage). The beauty and excitement of the visit by my family is estatic. They rave how the island is one of the most popular travel destinations for Korean travelors, especialy honeymooners.

I leave for Korea April 15th 2007 and I will embellish as I explore Je-Ju Island on April 18th 2007. I will be hornord to provide more photo's of the beauty and culture of the island. Also, to help edit your article.

any questions; you may contact me at michelle@abs-of-fla.com Please put the subject as " Je-Ju ", Thank you!

Great, looking forward to your new pics and information! If you create a user account then we can welcome you, and give you some links to help you in editing pages. If you want to upload photos, please upload them to Wikivoyage Shared, and don't forget to select a license (cc by sa 1.0 is the most compatible for us). Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Style

An editing question: who decides if the article doesn't correspond to the manual of style? I see the {{style}} posting at the top of the page but couldn't find information on the tool itself - who is supposed to use it, when or how? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Paula (talk • contribs)

Hi Paula, anyone can add the "style" tag if they think it's warranted, and anyone can clean up the article and remove it... usually the style tag is used for articles that are hugely off the mark; when the tag was added last year [2] it was more of a mess than it is now. But it still needs a little cleanup and trimming... for instance the "see" section needs some serious pruning, that festival could be hacked down into a few potent sentences rather than drawn out fluff, and formatted into a regular listing. And then the "Get in" section needs some tlc too, no need for the bullet point lists, they should be replaced with a sentence similar to "Jeju Int'l airport receives regular flights from xx, dd, gg and ee." Those are the biggest things I see, and maybe a nice once-over copyedit to the whole article for readability and prose – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Made most of the changes suggested by Cacahuate, with the exceptions of a nice once-over and fixing the format of every entry. So I removed the {{style}} tag. If anyone thinks this removal is premature, add it back in. But even with the removal, it could still use some TLC. (WT-en) Jbradfor 04:29, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Sex Theme Park?

I read on the BBC that there is a sex theme park in Jeju and I was wondering if this is true. Also if it is true how come there is nothing on it in the main article?

• Yep; it's called Love Land, and I'm frankly surprised that an attraction with such international attention doesn't get any mention on the main page. Is there a "family-friendliness" policy for the listings? I mean, it's certianly nothing to take young children to unless you're planning to give them "the talk"; it's quite illustrative.

There's actually a second, less explicit, sex "museum" in Seogwipo, as part of an oddball attraction duopoly schtick Jeju seems to have going (think the glass castle vs glass museum on either sides of the island). Having now been "exposed" to the vase set depicting the 12 signs of the Japanese animal-"loving" zodiac however, I wouldn't go as far as calling it "family-friendly".

Redundancy and Heirarchy

Ok, this page has useful info but is confusing as heck. It still shows clear signs of being once a single page since split into three with promise of more: a decisive plan needs drawing up before it gets too messy.

From what I saw on the island, the logical breakdown would be to split it according to the new-ish city divisions. Why? Administrative regions are the difference between places accessible by inner city (shinnae) bus and intercity (shinwei) bus services. My idea is to have "Jeju City" and "Seogwipo" pages cover what can be accessed reasonably via their respective inner city bus networks or taxis/short walks (so that means the up-market Jungmun district would logically be included within the Seogwipo article and not be seperate), and the main "Jeju" page cover the overall island outline and detailed entries for hinterland attractions. Thats three pages, no more, no less to match the three bus systems (airport limo being a special exception akin to tourbuses). Further pages should then only be added if a city frees itself from the chains of mere intercity bus route service. Redirects for potential needless splits will compliment this (eg: Jungmun -> Seogwipo, Seongsan -> Jeju, Yongdaum -> Jeju City). Important attractions within each city can simply be listed to minimise redundancy. In the case of things that span the entire island (thinking the Olleh hiking trail) the inverse approach would be taken, the details would be placed on the "Jeju" page, with simple references or lists of local trail segments on the "Seogwipo" (and eventually "Jeju City") pages. The main page would encourage all users to print out all three to cover the island.

Summary:

• Jeju: Island overview, hiterland (including Seongsan)
• Jeju City: Jeju City CBD and all suburbs linked on inner-city bus, so Yongdaum, Tapdong etc, right up to the arboretum on the slopes of Mt. Halla but not really beyond.
• Seogwipo: Seogwipo CBD, World Cup Stadium, Jungmun and as far west along the coast as Daepyeong-ri (unless theres a second bus spur west of this to Hwasun-ri, I vaguely recall seeing an extra one on the map)

Criteria: "Can I get there on shinnae bus and 15 minutes walk?" Yes -> put it in a city. No -> put it on the main page.

Thankfully, this also means that all three UNESCO sites will therefore be placed, and feature strongly on the main page, although most accomodation will link to the city pages. An island map showing city bounds would then solidify this distinction to make the breakdown clearer. I can make this, although I've yet to contribute maps to Wikivoyage, so some help with guidelines or use of wikivoyage assets are requested, even better a template or example file for Inkscape or equivalent software.

Unless somebody can provide a good reason not to follow through on this breakdown, I'll start rearranging things (no deletion, merely moving entries to the same spots on different pages). By creating a clear island framework, page updates will no longer be a nightmare like they are now, and doing things such as say, politely asking Jeju Life if their contributors could stick a one line entry in the guide here every time they fully review an attraction there, wouldn't be a dickish move.(WT-en) Snave 09:22, 30 January 2011 (EST)

I'm not familiar enough with Jeju to say if this particular split is sensible or not, but the current layout is certainly far from optimal, so I'd say plunge forward and give it a shot. In any case Jeju is and should already be a region article, meaning all hotels etc should be on the city pages and the main page should just contain general pointers ("for fancy beach resorts, go to..."). (WT-en) jpatokal 06:45, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Yeah, its kinda a weird setup. I mean, to be honest, it practically fits the "huge city" template despite having a tiny population. Basically two hubs full of hotels and the rest of the island a giant hinterland covered with farms and cut by highways with all the themepark attractions arranged around the intersection points of the highways. The result is that everything on the island is pretty evenly spaced out and close to nowhere resembling an urban centre. The typical themepark or attraction on Jeju is only serviced by intercity transport routes. I'll give it my best shot at a tidy-up then over the next few days as it definitely needs one.(WT-en) Snave 11:21, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Done. Best I think we can do with the heirarchy. Looks like one of the country's better articles nowv(not that that says terribly much), befitting of it being a premier attraction. Is there any way of putting a huge city style "print everything" box at the top without using the huge city template? Apart from ordinary additions (restaurants, bars and the cope section especially) I think that's the biggest thing the article needs right now. Not sure if Wikivoyage has a precedent for a "huge not-city with shit spaced out everywhere" page. ;)(WT-en) Snave 10:58, 17 February 2011 (EST)

You have done some impressive work on the article. However, ideally, this page would not contain any listings, only descriptions and pointers to the underlying cities/articles. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:37, 18 August 2011 (EDT)