Yeongjong-do, Yongyu-do and the reclaimed land in between are now all the same island -- Yeongjong Island. Insisting otherwise is pointless hair splitting. Jpatokal 12:16, 29 December 2008 (EST)
The residents on Yongyudo would strongly disagree, as do I. The airport has never been claimed by either island. The airport's location is actually considered a district. You will not find Yeonjeong-do on its address. People only refer to the airport as being part of Yeonjongdo because it's bigger than Yongyudo. That doesn't mean Yongyudo is gone. Again, you are wrong about the facts.Paula 19:52, 29 December 2008 (EST)
You yourself wrote that "Although it belongs to neither island locals will refer to Yeongjeong Island when people ask where the airport is". The IFEZ site  talks about "Yeongjong Area", with "Yeongjong Sky City" built on what was Yongyu, and even wikipedia:Yongyu-do redirects to Yeongjong Island.
Nowhere in that link does it say Yeongjeong Sky City was built on what was anything.Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
But the point is, this is totally pointless hairsplitting. Visitors cross over the bridge, they come to one island, the entire island is a part of
Jung-gu, and this one island is consistently referred to as Yeongjong. The fact that it was many islands is now only history. Jpatokal 00:32, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Just because the island isn't referred to as often doesn't mean it's not there Patokal! And like I said, they only refer to it cuz it's BIGGER...and it is the direction in which Seoulites will go to when they drive to the airport and when people are leaving the airport. Naturally, people will refer it to it that way. Again you use Wikipedia as a main reference. Well, here's your Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon_International_Airport. It is refered to as two islands united by the airport. Better yet talk to the PR department of the airport @ http://www.airport.kr/iiacms/pageWork.iia?_scode=C1207010101&fake=1231143381041. It isn't a matter of history if people want to locate the friggin airport Patokal.Paula 04:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)
And apparently it only seems pointless hairsplitting when someone else corrects your mistakes.Paula 04:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)
First, why are you reverting the additions I made about the airport's Terminal/Concourse split and the new shuttle train, or do you have an objection to that as well?
Why else? Your information is faulty. There are no restaurants on the 3rd floor and the some other facilities have been removed or moved around. I'm not putting a link cuz it's not been updated on their site yet.
WTF? The 3rd floor is the floor where the gates are, and it's full of restaurants.  ... Jpatokal 04:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Outdated information...like I said. Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Huh? Are you seriously telling me that they've stripped out all the food courts, Burger Kings etc that used to line the path to the gates on the 3rd floor, and which are listed in the site above? Where did they go then!? Jpatokal 23:38, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Second, the article already says "The airport sits on a perfectly square-shaped bulge formed largely from reclaimed land, joining together the "real" islands of Yeongjong and Yongyu." What's wrong with this?
Originally it did not say that. So, I just put it in a more succinct manner. If you don't want your work to edited, you shouldn't be posting it in the first place, remember?
That's right, I'm editing the article in an attempt to make you happy. So, what's wrong with that? Jpatokal 04:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)
WTF? If that's what you're trying to make me 'happy' you're failing miserably. That's what's wrong. Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
That link says nothing at all about Yeongjongdo. Jpatokal 04:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Very Good. It's talking about Yongyu! You know, the island that's not supposed to exist according to youPaula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
And fourth, the airport link you gave says nothing at all about any islands as far as I can see. Jpatokal 06:48, 5 January 2009 (EST)
It says exactly what I did. The airport connects the TWO islands. Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Can you give me a quote or check the link? Because I don't see anything about any islands on that page. Jpatokal 04:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)
There's the number to the PR centre. Checking with a real person might help.Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Listen, if you think it's so pointless why do you belabour the point? All the recognized official reps of Korea, Incheon, the airport that discuss the airport say the same thing. I don't feel the need to repeat myself again so if you wanna continue making this a pissing contest, fine but I'm sticking with the corrections. Anything more I have to say you can read on your page Paula 00:20, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Because your "corrections" are deleting valid info. I've changed the wording of the article half a dozen times in an attempt to address your concerns, but you're just hitting "undo", instead of trying to work out a compromise. Jpatokal 04:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)
What?!!! If you bother looking at the history you'll see I've tried to change my words several times. You're just undoing my edits all the time and argueing each point. And you're only rewording a couple of paragraphs. Everything else is the same. So, yeah. I'm hitting "undo."Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
I know little about this, but referring to the airport as being between two islands, when it clearly is not, makes no sense to me and regardless of any factual dispute, is simply irrelevant for travelers. Beyond that I can't comment on the disputed edits for lack of knowledge. I also barely am able to follow this discussion because of apparently unsigned comments, non-uniform indenting, etc. --PeterTalk 19:35, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Once and for all, here's a link you might find interesting. Paula 19:46, 22 January 2009 (EST)
I know nothing about this prior to trying to make sense of the above dispute, but Paula, looking at the link you just provided, in light grey type, at the very top, it says "Yeongjongdo island map"... so it seems to be calling the entirety of the new combined island by that name, no? Also on Wikipedia, the Yongyu Island article redirects to Yeongjong now, so perhaps that's the consensus over there too? – cacahuatetalk 21:24, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Ok. I've already tried reaching one of the Systems Operator about this but apparently he is not active. I am having an issue with the admins, one in particular. It's a looong story. But the summary is I try to keep editing pages with incorrect info and it keeps being reverted by the original author who happens in these cases to be a bureaucrat. I've asked for a little counselling from Evan but apparently he isn't around anymore. My fear is the admins are finding it difficult to regulate themselves or abiding by their own rules. Perhaps it is I who am not clear about it but the message I'm getting is stating facts about a place are not important to the traveller.
If you want to read more about this I will post the letter I sent to Evan up on my talk page. If anyone's got some constructive advice and isn't worried about towing the company line then please share. I warn you though it's a bit of a bookPaula 01:00, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Can you elaborate on your problem? Where? AHeneen 01:09, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I do believe Paula has a problem with me, and she's referring to the utterly bizarre saga of Talk:Yeongjong Island (plus possibly a few previous headbuttings on Talk:Dokdo). I've said all I have to say about this, so now I'll shut up and let y'all have your turn. Jpatokal 03:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Jani: We do not know each other. I am not taking this personally. I believe you are this way with everyone. I have a problem with your lack of compromise and your tone. When you are "helping" me, it reads like you are scolding me for f.....g up and your way is the only way. I and I'm thinking most have no agenda when contributing to articles. I at least am doing this simply to share accurate and helpful information on an area I am very familiar with. I simply like the idea of Wikitravel. Therefore I don't appreciate being spoken to like a wayward child or an incompetent employee when we are all doing this basically for the fun of it. Understandable?
I think a number of admins have been observing this particular incident from afar. I personally know nothing about the island in question and haven't gotten involved, but one suggestion I might offer is to refrain from questioning motives and character of other editors as it clouds the issue. Asking for someone who "isn't worried about towing the company line" and accusing admins of "finding it difficult to regulate themselves or abiding by their own rules" is neither relevant nor helpful to resolving any issues you might have with the content of an article. In addition, please understand that the goal is consensus, which means that all sides need to make a good faith effort to at least consider the point of view of those who disagree with them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:14, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Ryan: Excuse me, but I could not disagree more with the first point. When there are principles stated and people given special privileges/responsibilities to uphold them then there is an expectation they will. When a little power is involved among a smaller group of people, there is always a risk of abuse and "fat-head syndrome." I understand it is not helpful to criticise motives when something happens once in a while. But when it is a similar situation that occurs consistently over a lengthy period of time then it is never wrong to question why everyone who belongs to that group happen to have the exact same perspective.
The whole point of this site is so many people from all over can contribute to it. Not one or a few. If that was the goal then this site would be one of many already out there. Therefore with more voices cum more perspectives. Yes, consensus is good. I agree. But how do we reach consensus? By bullying? By having everyone think the same way? No. It's by using reason, doing some research on the facts and compromising.
Evan is not active here for the foreseeable future, besides Evan and Jptokal have been working together pretty closely for a number of years, so I doubt you would find much sympathy on that front, in any case, the way this place works, is if you think an admin is crossing a line, you take it up with one of the other active admins. (you can see a list here). Also, while I know Jptokal's direct style can often leave quite a bit to be desired, you often come across as overly aggressive yourself, which isn't exactly helping things, least of all if you are crying out for backup. Also in this case, reverting to an "edit war" is just about the worst thing you can do in these circumstances.
Now regarding the issue at hand, I think you might have misinterpreted the motives behind the edits, which I suspect would be 1) The traveller comes first 2) We want as simple a structure as possible. Now I've never been north of Gyeongju, and hence not an expert on anything Seoul, but it seems like the only ones that would really be hurt and sad we would call this amalgamated island Yeongjong, would be locals on Yongyu, and they hardly need a travel guide. most maps I could find, identify it as one island anyway (lest one from where the airport was still under construction): , , , . Which leads be to point 2, the amount of content in the guide hardly merits a split. If this is really something you'd loose sleep over, i would suggest either that you fill in so much useful content for Yeongyu, that it make sense to split the article, or that we discuss a rename the whole shabang to "Yeongjong-Yeongyu island", but from my light research on the subject, it does seem pointless as most places refer to the airport as being on Yeongjong, wikipedia even writes "The previously separate Yongyu, Sammok, and Sinbul Islands have been joined to Yeongjong Island by an area of reclaimed land". --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 03:13, 23 January 2009 (EST)
Ha, Ha. You'd be laughing too if you saw my letter to Evan. What you have written is exactly what I had assumed and predicted the problems are with Wikitravel. You have confirmed to me that the "Old Boys Club" mentality is as pervasive as I feared it was. At least you freely admit the obvious bias that exists within the admins and which you demonstrate yourself. So, you will forgive me if I don't consider your criticism of what you perceive to be my "overly aggressive" ways as credible. Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It is not a "cry...for backup" as you put it that I am looking for, it is the observance to the original ideals, objectivity, fairness and the freedom to make legitamite edits, of the site that I was demanding. And when I did not receive that from the people I thought most committed to those principles I was taken aback and responded concurrently.Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
By the way, I was not the one who had asked for the page to be blocked. I am always willing to compromise and have in the past. And if Evan is not active why has he not been removed on the active list?Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
No.1: If the traveller comes first shouldn't we be giving them accurate information? Does that not count as being necessary? It's not about, "my pony is prettier than your pony." It's about do these things exist or not. Is this information necessary or not? I don't know about you. I REALLY don't know about you but that's what I understand as the "traveller coming first" to mean. If the facts are not important and you refuse to see them and what you're really interested in is creating your own terms for places and inventing things because it's easier or follows some arbitrary guideline beknownst only to you and your band of bureacrats then PLEASE, PLEASE tell me now. I will be happy to let you have your way so you can play with yourselves. But if you genuinely are interested in accepting accurate information that is helpful to anyone visiting these places then believe you me, my "aggression" will subside.
No.2: Have you actually seen my edits? You would be hard pressed to see a simpler structure in some of them. I would be hurt. Every Korean local I have explained this bizarre argument I'm having with y'all would be hurt. And most importantly, anyone trying to get to the beaches and markets on Yongyu Island would be hurt. The official Incheon tourist map lists it as an island , Wikipedia describes the map as Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island , the description on the link YOU listed also describes it as Yeongjong and Yongyu Island , the airport PR Centre confirms that distinction as well. I mean WTF? Even information you and Jani have listed say exactly what I'm saying. I mean which part is difficult to understand? Every official body acknowledges this. There are 2 islands and the airport is on reclaimed land between them. That's it. Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)Paula 00:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm maybe we have a clash of cultures here, but I was actually trying to mediate, because I feel that if we could reconcile our differences, and come to a mutual understanding, you have the potential to become a good contributor, and hence I was not trying to "gang up", and being active around here for less than year, I hardly think I'd count among any "Old Boys club". Jani suggested that most travellers consider this one island, and I provided some links to maps and wikipedia suggesting he was not alone with this view - when you're trying to work out a compromise, the first thing you should do is trying to appreciate the reverse view. Next I suggested a possible compromise renaming the article to "Yeongjong-Yeongyu islands", this seem reasonable to me, as it is indisputably now one island physically, and travellers arrive smack in the middle of the joint entity, hence I suspect anyone not familiar with Korea, would search information about the "island" he has landed on, unaware that this used to be two islands. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 02:41, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Sertmann: Clash of cultures. How so?
I appreciate you trying to explain your message. I believe I have addressed our correspondence in the message above. However, I should point this out for future reference when someone is complaining of being "ganging uped on" it is unnecessary to state that opinion as also being your own.
For the latter point, I also think it is reasonable to use both names for the article. I have never disputed it is physically one island. What is being disputed is whether that physically one island should rightfully be referred to as Yeonjongdo. It should be noted that Coney Island and Long Island in New York are also physically one big island. They too were formerly separate islands that were then stuck together by reclaimed land. And although they are part of New York they are by no means one big Coney Island. I knew watching that Britney Murphy movie would come in handy one of these days.
There is no "old boys' club" here-- most of us have never met each other, and we certainly do not always agree with each other. I don't know much about this particular case but it seems to me that 1) they are now physically one island, regardless of whether part of it is artificial or not, and therefore 2) even if locals still refer to them as separate islands, what is really meant is that they are still distinct, even though have become districts of what is now the same island, and 3) there is not enough information present to warrant splitting this into two articles. I might suggest making it clear in the intro that there are two basic districts here, and I wouldn't mind if the listings told which part they were in as part of the address/directions. Certainly no one is trying to quash listings on the Yongyu side. Sertmann's suggestion may have some merit, although I might suggest leaving "islands" out of the title and just call it "Yeongjong-Yeongyu" to avoid misrepresentation. Even if kept at simply "Yeongjong", I think the "island" part should probably be dropped from the title, since it includes things not on the Yeongjong side-- it's one thing to redirect a neighboring district, admitting that we have done so, but quite another to say that Yeongjong is now the name of the whole she-bang when that may not be quite true. Texugo 06:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Tuxego: "There is no 'old boys' club' here." Says you, old boy;) Latter part sounds reasonable except for the leaving out the island part.
But they are not distinct in any meaningful sense: once you cross the bridge from the mainland, you're on one island, period, and the Korean National Tourism Organization (how much more authoritative can you get?) labels the whole island "Yeongjongdo" . Jpatokal 08:23, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Jani: Thought you said you'd shut up.
I lied. Now, what do you have to say about the KNTO links above? Jpatokal 11:55, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Surprise, surprise. I have this to say: . It's called different information from the same source. HAH!Paula 03:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
If both names are used locally, however, wouldn't it make sense to include them both? LtPowers 08:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Both names are used in the 'Understand' section (though, I'm not sure why 'real' is included). Why not just move the text in the understand section into the lead (since it includes references to both the airport as well as the beaches - useful stuff from the travelers point of view). That way, both names are included and the reader gets a succinct description of the place. --Wandering 10:53, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Above all, please assume good faith. When an issue starts to get you upset, it's a good idea to take a step back, and remember that the way some geographic location is described on some travel wiki is not ultimately that big of a deal. Personally, I don't think you are correct on this matter (this  looks pretty clearly like one island to me), but more importantly, this dispute is simply not relevant for travelers, and I think we would all be better served by trying to add travel content (where to go, what to see, etc.) than continuing this dispute. --PeterTalk 14:28, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Y'all: Hmmm. Maybe I should've put this here a lot sooner. Good to see reasonable differing solutions. I've taken in all that's been written, will do some editing and see what happens. Thank you much and peace.Paula 03:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I suggest that, instead of editing the page, you list your present concerns with the current content of the article on the Talk page, and we get a third party to change the wording. Jpatokal 11:55, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Nice try Patakaillo. I think "my concerns" have been more than sufficiently outlined on this page, the Yeongjong do page and my own page. I offer that a third party review the edits I do and if again there is more disagreement then we cross that bridge when we get to it. Paula 03:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
What would y'all think if I title the article Incheon International Airport and describe its location and surroundings in the subsequent headings? I think it would make more sense to put the focus on the airport itself instead of the islands which would take care of the whole debate.Paula 00:53, 10 February 2009 (EST)
I think that would be misleading, because unlike (eg) Kansai or Chubu airports, there is more on the island(s) than just the airport. Jpatokal 07:53, 10 February 2009 (EST)
THIRD PARTY please!Paula 03:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Is there anything else of significant interest on the island than the airport? If there are points of interest then I would stick to the islands name because i would search for the island name instead of the airport. Maybe it would be good to have some add-on like if there are a golf course, spa, posh temple etc. to pass the time while on transit. This would interest me. jan 16:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)
(ec) It is kind of hard for a third party to suggest something, but let me try. It seems that there is stuff to do on the island independently of the airport (ironically, the stuff to do appears to be on Yongyu Island!) suggesting that, for Koreans anyway, the island(s) may be a destination independent of the airport. If that is the case, I suggest leaving it as is, popping the reference to Yongyu and its beaches into the lead (presumably, the Koreans who visit only the beaches will distinguish between the two islands), and leaving it at that. Incheon International Airport as well as Yongyu Island can then redirect to this article. But, I don't know enough (nothing is a better word) to know if this is wise or accurate so this is just a suggestion. --Wandering 16:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Sigh — Paula just went ahead and moved the article to Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island, without any discussion. I agree with User:Wandering that including "Yongyu Island" in the lead is OK, but I see no reason to saddle the article with such a verbose name. → Talk:Yeongjong IslandJpatokal 03:16, 24 February 2009 (EST)
I'm OK with stating "Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island" in the lead, but I don't see any reason to saddle this article with such a long name. Jpatokal 03:14, 24 February 2009 (EST)
From someone who has been following this dispute from afar: until any consensus is reached the article should not be renamed. "Consensus" does not mean unanimity, but based on discussions on this page and in the Pub it seems that most people are ambivalent at best to a rename, with no agreement at all about what a better name would be. Personally, based on a very limited understanding of the area, looking at a map, and referring to Wikipedia I'd suggest it should keep its current name, although if it's important then a bit more history about how the area was once two islands could be added to the "Understand" section. -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:57, 24 February 2009 (EST)
The relevant policy here is Wikitravel:Consensus#Status_quo_bias. If there is a disagreement, the default position is to leave the article as is until an agreement is reached. If no agreement has been reached, the article should remain as it was before the controversy began. A new consensus on how to handle this issue has most certainly not been reached, so renaming the article is at this time inappropriate.
For what it's worth, I still don't understand why it would be so important to insist that there are two islands being covered in this article, when my traveler's eye sees only one on the map. Insofar as it is relevant, the two-island history should, I think, be covered in the understand section. --PeterTalk 12:12, 24 February 2009 (EST)
The reason it's important is because most of the tourist attractions actually belong to Yongyu island. It would be kind of tough to explain where the area is without explaining its relationship to Yeongjong Island. And once travellers get there, this will help them understand why locals refer to that area as Yongyu and not Yeongjeong. I guess I don't get why this is difficult to grasp for some. These names were given to these places for a reason. They are meant to be differentiated.
Not that it would actually happen but how do you know when consensus has been reached?Paula 03:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I don't see why this can't simply be explained in the understand section; the name should be as simple as possible, in my view. And not that I expect consensus to ever occur on this article... ;) But the general rule of thumb is that everyone has agreed upon something. That or an overwhelming majority of people have agreed. Or, I suppose, if one side of the disagreement is insisting on something that is contrary to Wikitravel policy, which is not the case here. --PeterTalk 04:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Jani, there are NO restaurants there. I was there recently and made a point to check it out myself. Access can be gotten from elevators on the 3rd floor but there are no actual restaurants on that floor.
Thought that (landslide) was some sort of typo.
My turn: why do you keep changing the intro? It had all the info necessary, succint and useful to the traveler.And it was written as per the discussion on the Pub. What's your excuse now?
I rewrote the intro because your English is not very good. (For example, saying "the two islands merged as one" implies that the islands themselves made the decision to move together.) Do you have any factual issues with my rewording? Jpatokal 04:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Again, information on the homepage has not been updated. They are in the midst of changing the information. From now on, if I have already addressed a specific issue more than once, I will not repeat it. Look to previous discussions on this page. Paula 02:38, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Did you take any pictures? That may help this situation. I feel like you guys are about to get in a fist fight over a burger king (or lack thereof). their fries aren't that good – cacahuatetalk 02:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Buddy, we're in a perpetual metaphorical fist fight it seems. Pictures? Of what? There are no restaurants on that floor. What am I supposed to take pics of? Unless you are addressing Jani? Which would be a refreshing change. So, yeah. Get pics Jani.Paula 02:59, 5 March 2009 (EST)
The official airport website and official airport map, which are up to date as of at least June 2008 since they include the concourse/terminal split, indicate that the following fast food restaurants exist in the 3F Departures "Duty-Free" (airside) area: Subway, Delisky (x2), Quiznos, Bob & T, Burger King, Cafe Amoje. In addition, the 3F Departures area contains Vita Via (x2), Food Capital (x2) and Food Square food courts, plus 16 cafes, plus 5 bakeries and donut shops. Burger King's own site also lists the following outlet: 인천 중구 운서동 2172-1 여객터미널 3층(Air Side). Here's even a Flickr picture dated Nov 2008 showing Food Capital under consturction and a map of food outlets around 3F Departures. Now, should I believe a) all of the above, or b) your claim that every single one of these is now magically gone? Jpatokal 04:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Argh. I need help with screw up. Trying to rename the page but for some reason it went to the mispelled one and redirected the correct page to it. Now I can't put the article under the correct heading. Can someone delete Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island? There's nothing there. Thanx.Paula 03:16, 24 February 2009 (EST)