Jump to content

Talk:Jeju Province: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 160: Line 160:
:The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't say whether "data" should be treated as singular or plural. A quick search of Wikipedia for "data is" (11,500 occurrences) vs. "data are" (18,700) shows no consensus. The MOS [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_style_guides|suggests some external style guides]], like Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA, or the Oxford. [https://editorsmanual.com/articles/data-singular-or-plural/ This article] summarises the style guide consensus: generally, data as singular when writing for a popular audience, data as plural when writing for a scientific one. It doesn't sound like there's a clear correct answer in this case, so probably not worth an edit war. —[[User:Giantflightlessbirds|Giantflightlessbirds]] ([[User talk:Giantflightlessbirds|talk]]) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
:The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't say whether "data" should be treated as singular or plural. A quick search of Wikipedia for "data is" (11,500 occurrences) vs. "data are" (18,700) shows no consensus. The MOS [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_style_guides|suggests some external style guides]], like Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA, or the Oxford. [https://editorsmanual.com/articles/data-singular-or-plural/ This article] summarises the style guide consensus: generally, data as singular when writing for a popular audience, data as plural when writing for a scientific one. It doesn't sound like there's a clear correct answer in this case, so probably not worth an edit war. —[[User:Giantflightlessbirds|Giantflightlessbirds]] ([[User talk:Giantflightlessbirds|talk]]) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
::[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=data+were&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2023&as_yhi=2023&hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5 A search on "data were" in Google scholar] for the year 2023 on January 5, 2024 produced approximately 173,000 results. And [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=data+was&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2023&as_yhi=2023&hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5 A similar search on "data was" over the same year] produced approximately 153,000 results. Clearly there is no consensus in the scientific community. Given that wiki should reflect usage rather than dictate usage, I believe that wikimedians should maintain the usage of the original articles, rather than change the usage when quoting a scientific article. (For the sake of consistency, however, when the usage across the referenced articles differs, clearly only one form should be used.) [[User:MargaretRDonald|MargaretRDonald]] ([[User talk:MargaretRDonald|talk]]) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
::[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=data+were&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2023&as_yhi=2023&hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5 A search on "data were" in Google scholar] for the year 2023 on January 5, 2024 produced approximately 173,000 results. And [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=data+was&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2023&as_yhi=2023&hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5 A similar search on "data was" over the same year] produced approximately 153,000 results. Clearly there is no consensus in the scientific community. Given that wiki should reflect usage rather than dictate usage, I believe that wikimedians should maintain the usage of the original articles, rather than change the usage when quoting a scientific article. (For the sake of consistency, however, when the usage across the referenced articles differs, clearly only one form should be used.) [[User:MargaretRDonald|MargaretRDonald]] ([[User talk:MargaretRDonald|talk]]) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

== Citation 37 Invalid ==

For a quick research project I was looking through the sources trying to find more resources for Bangsatap, however I found Citation 37 to lead to two messages in Korean and Japanese. A quick Google translate gives the message: A translation request was made via a server to which access is not permitted.

With this source not being available, the entire paragraph about Bangastap has no citations whatsoever.

While this is a relatively small part of the article, there is only two cited examples of culture/society in the section for Society and Culture. [[User:Aperture LENS|Aperture LENS]] ([[User talk:Aperture LENS|talk]]) 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:27, 14 May 2024

Merger proposal

I propose that Jeju Province be merged with Jeju Island under the page name "Jeju Island".

As said in both pages, they are situated on and coterminous with each other. Jeju Island stats can be incorporated into Jeju Province and just be renamed together as the name it is most known for. They both contain the same categories starting with history/previous names - Tamna/Jeju Uprising. The main categories of Jeju Island (Geography, Climate) can be integrated into Jeju Province layout as well as Jeju Island's Places of interest + Transportation into Jeju Province's Tourism category. They repeat each other's information often enough to become one article. I think that the content in the Jeju Island article can easily be explained in the context of Jeju Province, and the Jeju Province article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Jeju Island will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The articles are ranked C-class and Start- articles respectively, and if we clean-up and merge the substantial articles together, it will be a means to a more informative and incisive article. Dixtrix1 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Garam: doesn't matter if strictly speaking Jeju in the official sense is different from Jeju in the geographical sense, it is redundant speak so strictly and to have separate articles for both. When people go to the article for Jeju, they expect to find out about both it's government and geography; neither of these detracts from the other. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures do not match each other

Two conflicting figures for population are given, the one in "Demographics" not dated. Should be rationalized.

182.225.181.132 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Kim Jong-Il?

Under the "Modern History" section, there is some irrelevant gabble about the poor oppressed Reds during the Korean War. Is Kim Jong-Il getting bored with his "pleasure squad" and trolling Wikipedia in his copious spare time? Someone send that poor boy some Viagra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bacterial genus Tamlana

A bacterial genus called Tamlana is given by the descriptors as being based on Tamla, the historic name of Jeju island. See first line of Dexcription of Tamlana gen. nov. section in [1]. If this is incorrect/impossible please amend the article by mentioning they got their spelling wrong or similar. Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic

So tired of everyone not respecting what Wikipedia is all about. This is not your personal blog to vent about the South Korean government. The tone of the article on the military base does not even come close to neutral. And I see this constantly in korean-related Wiki articles. Meme3234 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why? It's because Koreans have this unstoppable hate against the current government from every political spectrum right now. And one more thing. I'm not a Korean. I'm a Filipino, a very proud Filipino. You can complain about this all you want but it will never stop. I don't think even the current Wikipedia-related regulations can stop this particular and growing Korean political concern. And stop with the aggressive words like pathetic. It doesn't really give you a positive image. Komitsuki (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something will never stop does not mean that you cannot complain against it. War for example will probably never stop. Do you think we should stop complaining about that too? Who cares if you are from the Philippines, or if you are proud about it? This is not relevant to the topic at hand, Komitsuki. Meme has made an point that the article is not neutral; you have not really made an argument at all apart from the fact that you think that Meme should not be entitled to sharing his opinion. Meme, I suggest you provide more detail about why you do not think the article is neutral.Peikang (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ngram

Just out of interest unusual for a government sponsored name change to be picked up so quickly in western sources. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Jeju language over Jeju dialect. Has the ROK govt decided that Jeju mal is a language? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotjawal forest

I switched "untouched" for "uncultivated" because the area was not, in fact, untouched until the 21st Century. The previous century had seen it exploited for charcoal production, especially during the 1970s, and most of the larger trees in many areas were cut. Now, they have grown back from sprouts that emerged around the circumferences of the trunks, and have grown back quite thickly. But they are not in their single-trunk, pristine condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.141.172 (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sea

I can't find on this page which sea Jeju Island is situated in. Come on, people! That's a rather crucial piece of information. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Please add a guidance on how to pronounce the name (and maybe also the historical names). Previously this was always romanised as "Cheju"; now the romanisation has changed, although the pronunciation should not have changed. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeju Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Province#Bangsatap

Nobody knows that when the Bangsatap was built over the year previous.

Knows what when built over what? --129.13.72.198 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jeju Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeju Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeju Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Support merging Jeju Island here as suggested. It is not necessary or helpful to have different entities for these. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally Jeju Island is more common to me than Jeju Province. --123.161.170.169 (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can rename the article Jeju after merge since it will no longer be necessary to disambiguate the titles of the two articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the merger. Jeju Province consists of Jeju Island and many other islands, some of which have their own articles in the English Wikipedia. (See Category:Islands of Jeju Province). --Maumivi (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given that a significant argument against remains uncontested over a period of more than a month. Klbrain (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following was removed because the list was against policies and guidelines that includes Wikipedia:Link farm,
I performed a bottom-to-top inclusive removal. I am posting them here if anyone wishes to review them and find maybe "one" that can be added back that enhances the article. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Jeju Island

The Jeju Island article should be merged into this one. As it stands, both articles completely overlap, covering exactly the same topics, with the Jeju Island article being both shorter (about half the length) and created later. Everything on Jeju Island fits here, and the majority is redundant. The history section is a slightly less developed version of this one. The Economy (and tourism) and Places of interests sections there are less developed versions of the Economy and Tourism sections here. The transportation section there is a slightly more developed version of the transportation section here. The remaining sections there (Etymology, Logo, Geography, Education, Utilities, Naval Base, and Health) are obvious gaps in this article, some being purely political and clearly not written with any page distinction in mind. Merging prevents this duplicative work across two articles with identical scope. (This merge would not preclude a purely geographical article from being created, similar to Geography of Hokkaido/Geography of Taiwan.) Further to this, the merged article should be moved to Jeju, similar to Hokkaido, as it would be the clear primary topic holding all relevant information. CMD (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, as Jeju Province includes several smaller islands near Jeju Island but are not part of Jeju Island. I think the comparison to the articles for Taiwan or Hokkaido is inaccurate, a better comparison would be Hawaii, Hawai'i (island), and Hawaiian Islands. Freedom4U (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a better comparison? Both Taiwan and Hokkaido have multiple islands. As for Hawaiian Islands, that is a good example of the split I proposed where it serves as a primarily geographical article, being the main article under Hawaii#Geography and environment. (The bit that isn't, the History subsection, is a poor copy of the main article history section.) CMD (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see your point. I agree in that Jeju Island should become an article primarily focused on discussing the island's geography (with the history (outside of geographical history/history regarding pre-human settlement and very early human settlement), economy, education, utilities, and health sections removed), while Jeju Province should maintain its use as an all purpose article for Jeju.
But the Jeju Island article should absolutely not be renamed into "Geography of Jeju Island". Freedom4U (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have aligned the articles along those lines, and added a section here to contain a Main link to the island article. CMD (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

data (plural or singular)?

Noting the edit reversions of @AG202: and @MargaretRDonald: concerning the usage of data.

I do not wish for an edit war. However, I do not believe a wikimedia article should be used as arbiters of word usage: Wikipedia pages report on word usage only, and the page Data correctly reports that in common parlance, the word data is frequently treated as singular, while in scientific articles it is (almost?) universally treated as plural. (And in all the many hundreds of scientific articles I have read, the subject, data, has always taken a plural verb.)

The page, Jeju Province, reports two scientific articles, one on scarlet fever, and one on the prevalence of antibodies for SFTS in blood. Both articles (reference 85 - https://www.jpmph.org/upload/pdf/jpmph-52-3-188.pdf & reference 86 - https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2019.51.4.337) treat data as plural. Wikimedians should honour their sources. Hence, the page Jeju Province should treat data as plural when reporting the findings of these two papers.

Please read the papers and permit me to honour the English of the original authors and permit me change the usage of data to plural on this page. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't say whether "data" should be treated as singular or plural. A quick search of Wikipedia for "data is" (11,500 occurrences) vs. "data are" (18,700) shows no consensus. The MOS suggests some external style guides, like Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA, or the Oxford. This article summarises the style guide consensus: generally, data as singular when writing for a popular audience, data as plural when writing for a scientific one. It doesn't sound like there's a clear correct answer in this case, so probably not worth an edit war. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search on "data were" in Google scholar for the year 2023 on January 5, 2024 produced approximately 173,000 results. And A similar search on "data was" over the same year produced approximately 153,000 results. Clearly there is no consensus in the scientific community. Given that wiki should reflect usage rather than dictate usage, I believe that wikimedians should maintain the usage of the original articles, rather than change the usage when quoting a scientific article. (For the sake of consistency, however, when the usage across the referenced articles differs, clearly only one form should be used.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 37 Invalid

For a quick research project I was looking through the sources trying to find more resources for Bangsatap, however I found Citation 37 to lead to two messages in Korean and Japanese. A quick Google translate gives the message: A translation request was made via a server to which access is not permitted.

With this source not being available, the entire paragraph about Bangastap has no citations whatsoever.

While this is a relatively small part of the article, there is only two cited examples of culture/society in the section for Society and Culture. Aperture LENS (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeju_Province&oldid=1223836676"