Talk:List of islands of Korea

Jsindo
Jsindo is an impossible name in Korean, though it does sound good! I don't have decent enough maps of the Geoje area, so could anyone who does correct this please? JPBarrass 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

List of islands of Korea → List of islands of South Korea – The article does not cover North Korean islands – - TheChampionMan1234 07:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article includes a list of islands in the Yellow Sea, which also borders North Korea. Are you sure none of them are in North Korean territorial waters? Philg88 ♦talk 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is not exclusively about South Korean islands. "Hwanghaenam-do", the last section before the "see also" section, is a North Korean province (it borders Yellow Sea). No other North Korean provinces are listed here. --Kusunose 10:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a SO-FIX-IT problem. Wily D  12:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then get to work. (Try here for inspiration or assistance). This article has been around for nearly 10 years with nothing on North Korean islands added yet. —  AjaxSmack   20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As has already been stated, there are already several North Korean islands listed here. They would have to be removed if this article's title changed. Neelix (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they would. The grand total of three red links in the list that are islands of North Korea can be put on this talk page for future use. —  AjaxSmack   04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a disservice to our readers to remove encyclopedic information from the article space. Surely maintaining a general Korea list and creating a new South Korea list would be preferable to a move that decreases access to available information. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Query out of utter ignorance, can people from South Korea freely visit North Korean islands. If not and if there's not a profound geological reason for keeping association between islands, I'd support the move.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WilyD. (Gregkaye: S.Korean visiting N.Korean territory is a good reason for jail for lots of years.) &mdash; Revi 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If there isn't enough coverage of North Korean islands, the appropriate response is to add more of these islands to the list. Neelix (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then get to work. (Try here for inspiration or assistance). This article has been around for nearly 10 years with nothing on North Korean islands added yet. —  AjaxSmack   20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my response above. Neelix (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support If S Koreans can't go to N Korean islands then this is a good reason to split content.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we have separate articles for North Korean and South Korean islands, there should be a parent article for Korea in general. Consider, for example, List of mammals of Korea, List of mammals of North Korea, and List of mammals of South Korea. Neelix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Such was the case here from around 2005–2007 . —  AjaxSmack  20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That such was the case before does not suggest that such should not be the case again. Neelix (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, the mammals articles contain a lot of duplicate info.  Instead, how about what existed from 2005–2007: a DAB page at List of islands of Korea with links to respective country articles? —  AjaxSmack   04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page is not appropriate in this case; disambiguation pages are not substitutes for parent articles. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – in its current state, the lead of the article states that it is a list of islands of the Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea). It'd either need to be significantly expanded to include North Korean islands, or moved to a more descriptive title. (The article itself also needs some serious attention, as right now it doesn't really discuss context or geographic locations; it's just a bunch of (mostly) redlinks.) --V2Blast (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The article has been around in some form for years.  I generally oppose progress by extortion but an article's title should accurately reflect its contents.  If someone wants to add significant North Korean content, I argue that it would still be better to have two articles, one for each country.  However, if others disagree and such content is added before the closure of this discussion, please disregard my support for a move.  —  AjaxSmack   20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then are we to simply lose the information contained in the Hwanghaenam-do section? Neelix (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered above. —  AjaxSmack  04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Move/split. The article is categorised under Category:Lists of islands by country, and there aren't other pages listing islands by peninsula. By all means split and create a List of islands of North Korea stub, if loss of information is a concern, but there doesn't seem to be a convincing argument in support of listing the two countries' islands together. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The region of Korea as a whole is used as the primary starting point for most lists rather than individual lists for North and South Korea, which are generally added if there is additional information that would bloat the main list. Consider, for example, List of rivers of Korea, List of lakes of Korea, List of airlines of Korea, and List of birds of Korea. Neelix (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any reason in particular why Korea lists should be treated differently? While I can sort of see the reason for having combined lists of rivers and animals (since North and South Korea are continuous geographically part of the same peninsula), I'm not sure that extends to islands. (If islands were to be grouped geographically, we should instead have List of islands in the Yellow Sea and List of islands in the Sea of Japan.) The airlines list, on the other hand, seems out-right absurd. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that Korean lists should be treated differently than other lists, but rather the same as other lists. To get rid of the region lists in exclusive favour of the country sublists is the opposite of common practice on Wikipedia. Consider, for example, List of islands of Africa, which is a general list for the region with sublists for individual countries. Other examples include List of islands of the Northeast United States, which has sublists for individual states, and List of islands of Bothnian Bay, which has sublists for individual archipelagos. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but that still doesn't address the fact that the most natural geographical groupings of these islands would instead be Yellow Sea / Sea of Japan. This list currently seems closer to a country list to me. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping us from creating a list of islands of the Yellow Sea. Such a list would be valuable in addition to the country-specific lists and the other region lists. What I am arguing is that there is no reason to get rid of the general Korea list just because it isn't well-developed yet or because we want a list specific to South Korea. We can have both, and we serve our readers better when we have both. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.