User talk:(WT-en) Rickvaughn

North Korea Map

Hi Rick. In regard to your change to the map which I produced Image:North_Korea_Regions_Map.png and your derivative Image:North_Korea_Regions_Map02.png, I have the following comments:

1. The only change seems to be a re-naming of the Sea of Japan to the East Sea? That seems to be contentious and in any case the rule of thumb at WT is that the traveler comes first and naming conventions follow the name most commonly known to travelers. That would certainly be Sea of Japan.

2. As a matter of procedure, it is normal when updating an existing WT map to simply upload it as the same file with an explanation of the update and not to create a new file. A couple of other issues I can see with your new file is that the licensing is different to the original image without a single substantive change and that it did not list either the original image or the vector file as its source. Updating maps is great and is certainly an aim of the Regions Map Expedition but care must be taken with the licensing and crediting.

Bearing all of that in mind, I have changed the map at North Korea back to the original. Thanks. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:17, 29 November 2009 (EST)

==================================

Bear in mind that "Sea Of Japan" is a contentious wording to people in Korea, and does not follow THEIR naming "conventions".

Perhaps this map on the Korean version of Wikivoyage will read differently, but this is the English version, and English-speakers call it the Sea of Japan. For that reason, I'm going to second Burmesedays' decision to keep the original map. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:11, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Please note that edit warring is extremely bad form. In case of a dispute, the status quo rules until a new consensus is formed -- so please attempt to obtain that first, at Talk:North Korea. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:17, 1 December 2009 (EST)

==========

edit war - you are the one who is warring, I am merely correcting an error. Who exactly is the status quo here? I feel as though I am being bullied into accepting it.

Calling the sea the "Sea of Japan" is not meant to offend Koreans or to show favoritism for the Japanese; we are trying to call it by the name most often used and that is the Sea of Japan, as far as I know.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:24, 1 December 2009 (EST)

You do realize, if you were to print out the map and show it to your North Korean guides, they might possibly have you jailed?

Has this ever actually occurred? Even Lonely Planet lists Sea of Japan (along with "East Sea"). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Nobody is bullying anybody, nor is the Sea of Japan nomenclature an error as that is the name most commonly understood by travelers and therefore is the name used by WT. Now there may well be a case for changing the name to the East Sea but as correctly pointed out earlier the way to tackle that is by debate and reaching a concensus. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:10, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I'm sympathetic to all sides here, and we should of course not try to resolve disputes by edit warring. But may I suggest we follow a compromise version in the vein of what we did with the South Korea map (per Jani's suggestion)? Using "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" keeps things clear for travelers unfamiliar with the local naming disputes—it actually can help clear them up. And there is that added benefit that it will placate emotionally-charged political concerns. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Was just about to suggest that --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 13:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Sounds good to me. I will edit the source file in that vein and put up a new map. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, that's a good compromise. This will only be for maps of Korea, though. Right? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:53, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Should be. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 21:06, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Done. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:10, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Status quo

Hey Rick, I just wanted to clear up what Dguillaime was referring to—Project:Consensus#Status quo bias. That policy exists just to ensure that contentious changes are made only after having a discussion, since the back and forth of an edit war is unproductive and usually leads to bad feelings all around. Hope this all hasn't turned you off to contributing ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:27, 1 December 2009 (EST)