Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wandu Mountain City. The one point on which there is agreement is that it is not sensible to have two articles on the same place since this is clearly a POV naming fork. There appears to be different content and references between the two articles. However, I lack the knowledge to carry out a sensible merge so I am keeping the history of this article visible to enable more expert editors to merge across relevant material. Because of the disputes going on I am protecting the various redirects. The way to resolve the naming dispute is for those editors who prefer Hwando (fortress) to raise a WP:RM. TerriersFan 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hwando (fortress)

This article has been created by User:Cydevil38 as a POV fork of an identical article "Wandu Mountain City" to circumvent the romanization dispute of 丸都 (Pinyin:Wandu, Korean:Hwando) in the article Goguryeo, the discussion about his editing in Wandu Mountain City, and the discussion about Romanization of Chinese characters. This POV fork should be deleted.--Jiejunkong 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38's manipulation of Wandu Mountain City and preparation of the POV fork are described in Talk:Wandu_Mountain_City#Unethical_Behavior, which is verifiable by looking at the article's editing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiejunkong (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cydevil38 also bypassed the redirection link "Hwando fortress" and used a strange title with unnecessary disambiguation suffix.--Jiejunkong 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. From a quick perusal of the page histories, this looks like a content dispute. Dbromage [Talk] 07:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. This is a content dispute. The WQA became stuck about 2 hours ago and was referred to WP:RFC/HIST. In this light, nominating the article for deletion seems disruptive. Dbromage [Talk] 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • POV forks normally come from content disputes. I don't know that content disputes can be used to deny the judgement that something is a POV fork.--Jiejunkong 08:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The point I'm making is the dispute was referred to an RFC for resolution. I hope you're not making a point by nominating the article for deletion before that process has even started. Dbromage [Talk] 08:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The RFC is about the edit war in Wandu Mountain City. Currently there is talk going on in Talk:Wandu Mountain City. I promised the administrator User:Darkwind to fill in all technical evidence in Talk:Wandu Mountain City in a few days (User_talk:Darkwind#Talk:Wandu_Mountain_City), then I will put this into RFC if needed. But this doesn't mean the other side can create POV forks during these a few days. And it doesn't mean you can validate the POV forks without even looking at the reliable sources (you admitted you only had a quick perusal of the page histories. Maybe the technical contents are too hard for you. But then you may ask some experts to deal with the contents, rather than jump to conclusions by yourself).--Jiejunkong 08:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not a historian so I can't comment on the specifics of the content. I. and probably most other Wikipedians, can't say for sure which article is "correct" (I use that term figuratively). That's what WP:RFC/HIST is for. Nominating a rival article for deletion so soon after the WQA stalled and was referred to RFC does look a tad like making a point. Dbromage [Talk] 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • You said it, rival article! FYI, an article created as a rival of another existing article is known as a POV fork in Wikipedia. Totally untolerated.Wiki Pokemon 04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Still, you know that it is non-trivial to rescan all the reliable sources to write down those historical records (while I also have to spend quite a lot of time to reply to the non-technical messages like what we wrote here). This takes time to finish and you cannot validate POV forks during the time.--Jiejunkong 09:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Dbromage [Talk] seemed to not understand what a POV fork is. Wikipedia has strong policy against POV forking and the recommended action is deletion of the offending fork, no question ask. There may be content dispute, but the author of the fork, instead of resolving the dispute has created a POV fork to avoid discussioin, and to make a point in his POV fork. That is the reason Wikipedia strongly require all POV fork be deleted. All discussions and resolution by WP:RFC/HIST or whatever should continue at the original articles, not creating a POV fork.Wiki Pokemon 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep My dispute at Wandu Mountain City is that it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not the historic fortress itself. The fortress no longer exists and now lies in ruins, and recently the remains(possibly, but not certain whether this site was Hwando Seong) have been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site under the official name of "Wandu Mountain City"(Korean transliteration: Hwando Sanseong). In reliable English publications, however, the common romanization is "Hwando" with various suffixes. Also, regardless of romanization, the name of the fortress itself is also a matter of dispute. Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition uses slightly different name(Hwando Seong) for the fortress with a different definition, that Hwando Seong is an alternate name for Guknae Seong. Hwando Seong that Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition uses is the common Korean term for this historic fortress, and English transliteration of this name is also used in Cambridge History of Japan[1]. Another English publication, Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary[2], uses the name "Hwando" without any suffixes and defines it as an alternative name for Guknae Seong(romanized as Kungnaesong in the book), same definition as that in Encyclopedia Britannica. Doosan Encyclopedia(the largest Korean encyclopedia), on the other hand, uses an entirely different name(Wina-am Seong), and explains that it was built as a defensive structure for Guknae Seong. According to this encyclopeida, Hwando Seong and its variants are alternative names for Win-am Seong. So my point is that "Wandu Mountain City" is not necessarily an equivalent of "Hwando Seong" or "Wina-am Seong", and it is necessary to detach this historic entity from the fixed name and definition of the UNESCO World Heritage Site to make room for the controvesies over the name and definition of this historic entity. The article needs much improvement and revision, but not deletion. Cydevil38 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wandu Mountain City is originally created to be about the historic fortress as the main theme, no doubt about it. It as a UNESCO World Heritage Site is a side theme. Cydevil is intentionally twisting the above fact. The objective situation is clear that Cydevil is not creating a new article independent of Wandu Mountain City, but a POV fork.Wiki Pokemon 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wandu Mountain City as POV fork. If Wandu Mountain City itself has inappropriate POV content or is inappropriate named, there are more appropriate vehicles to address those rather than creating a POV fork. (As far as I am concerned, the article should be named simply Wandu or Hwando -- which one is more appropriate is debatable -- and all issues dealing with location, modern designation, and whether the ruins were the same as the historical city of Wandu should be dealt with within the article.) --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is no POV forking. For example, there are separate articles for Tsushima Island and Tsushima City. The geographical, cultural, and historical elements within a modern day city deserve separate scholarly treatments. (Wikimachine 04:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete. Obviously a POV fork to circumvent debate and consensus building of a dispute.Wiki Pokemon 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hwando should be kept in order to describe the Fortified city that once existed at the site. UNESCO registers it as Wandu mountain city, due to the historic name that was given to it, when Wandu was first built. I suggest that Wandu Mountain City be redirected to this page.Odst 20:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
oops...Not this page, but the Hwando page. Odst 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've been called by Odst to look at this dispute - and it's my personal opinion that we need to keep this article b/c within the context of Goguryeo history, Hwando fortress deserves its own article - separate from the Wandu about the city in the Chinese context. Also, the guys who are advocating for the deletion of this article are the same POV guys (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong) who made ridiculous requests. (Wikimachine 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
  • merge to Wandu Mountain City,the two present the same city or fortress,but Wandu is a more formal name.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Hwando is a more formal name, since it was a Korean kingdom that created and named it.Odst 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
rather, Wandu mountain city should be redirected to Hwando, since UNESCO heritage is of less importance to the actual fortress itself.Odst 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
See UNESCO and World Heritage Site for their significance.--Endroit 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether Wandu or Hwando is the more appropriate name is not the issue here. The issue is whether the article in question here was properly created as a separate article or improperly created as a POV fork. If it is an improper POV fork, the factors that support having the Wandu article be named Hwando do not support the article's continued existence, only a move of the Wandu article to Hwando. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38's edit history up to Aug. 24 [3] shows evidence of WP:POINT violation, by the creation of this POV fork. Hwando (fortress) (or Hwando Seong 丸都城 in Korean) is a POV fork of Wandu Mountain City (or Hwando San Seong 丸都山城 in Korean).--Endroit 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There's more: To be fair, this POV fork may have been created in retaliation for the creation of another POV fork: Guonei City (國內城) is a POV fork of Guknae Seong (國內城), albeit UNESCO calls it Guonei City. The proper procedure which should have been followed is WP:RM (or WP:DR).--Endroit 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I noticed that there was an editing war occurred at the Guonei City. Guonei City and Guknae Seong are the same thing, thus they should be merged. According to the wikirecord, Guknae Seong was created earlier, thus the POV fork discussion of that article can be discussed immediately after this POV fork discussion because they are quite similar in my opinion.--Jiejunkong 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Endroit's comments here further proves my point, that some editors may insist upon the "official name" and the "official definition" of this entity, hence limiting the scope of this article to contents already set by UNESCO. So I believe Wandu Mountain City should deal with the entity that has been designated as the UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the article nominated here should focus on the historic entity that no longer exists today. Cydevil38 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think anybody (except Wikimachine) buys your story that the 2 articles talk about 2 different things, Cydevil.--Endroit 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I do. That's what I advocate for as well. Another example is Fortress_Louisbourg and Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. (Wikimachine 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
Wiktionary translates 城 (pronounced "seong" in Korean) as "castle", "city"/"town", or "municipality", BUT NOT "fortress". Therefore, Hwando Seong (丸都城) becomes "Wandu/Hwando City", and not "Wandu/Hwando Fortress". Where's your source for the use of the word "fortress"? I believe your interpretation and usage of "fortress" (in English) amounts to original research.--Endroit 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
성(城) a castle;a fortress;a citadel;a city wall[4] Cydevil38 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Did they use modern Korean in Goguryeo? Goguryeo kept all their records in classical Chinese, so I believe you cannot use your modern Korean dictionary to translate the original classical Chinese into English. Don't engage in original research. Get reliable secondary sources in English. For example, Gina Lee Barnes (2001; pp. 165-166) calls Wandu/Hwando a "walled city" (in English).--Endroit 02:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't argue with me b/c I'm a Korean & I know my language. "seong" means any kind of walled fortification. (Wikimachine 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
If you search the web, you will see that Korean websites sometimes confound the words "fortress" with "city" when translating "Seong" (城, 성) into English. That's just the way it is. However when you say something like "a mountain fortress that served as the second capital of Goguryeo", it's obvious that the correct translation into English for any capital was supposed to be "city" and NOT "fortress". That's as ridiculous as saying "Seoul was the Han fortress (漢城, Han Seong) which served as Joseon Dynasty's capital", and start an article called Han fortress. UNESCO has called Wandu a "city" and I provided the source above. Please provide your source rather than do any original research.--Endroit 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, Hanyang and Hanseong. They're both used to describe the capital city Seoul. However, Hanyang is the name for the city, Hanseong is the fortification that surrounds the city. (Wikimachine 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
Again, any sources for what you're saying? The Joseon Dynasty article says: "In 1394, Hanyang was declared the new capital and formally renamed "Hanseong".--Endroit 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know that & I highly doubt that but that article is not sourced either. You can't cite a Wikipedia article. But it doesn't matter - now that I'm fully aware of the situation - Hwando is just like the case with Goguryeo. It may be called Manchuria or Northeast China but Goguryeo was there in its own time with its own name. Same with Hwando. (Wikimachine 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
It would be shameless for an amateur to ignore Samguk Sagi, which is considered by most Korean history researchers as the "bible" to study ancient history in the region. If you cannot read and cannot understand the fact that "丸都" is the original writing while Wandu/Hwando is merely the modern romanization forms, then you cannot blame other users for being yourself.--Jiejunkong 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I only recently figured out that there is a separate page called Hwando fortress. Maybe it would be appropriate to move Hwando to Hwando fortress, but I am against it being moved to Wandu Mountain City. Odst 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hwando_(fortress) is the article created by Cydevil, it is the POV fork of Wandu Mountain City. Hwando_(fortress) must be either deleted or redirected to Wandu Mountain City. Hwando and Hwando fortress are redirect pages, they will eventually be deleted, or redirected to Wandu Mountain City when Hwando_(fortress) is either deleted or redirected to Wandu Mountain City. That is the rule even if you are against it.Wiki Pokemon 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is no POV fork. A fortress within a city in the past is different from an article about a modern city. (Wikimachine 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
Two flaws in your remarks: (1) If you want to call a non-residential ruin as a modern city, then obviously we are not on the same page. (2) Hwando is not the so-called ancient name. At the time the Wandu Mountain City was Goguryeo's capital, people only wrote classical Chinese 丸都. People at that time didn't know nothing about romanization. Hwando is the modern Korean romanization of 丸都, while Wandu is the modern Chinese Pinyin romanization of 丸都.--Jiejunkong 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is pathetic. Odst is totally confused about POV forking rules. And all Wikimachine, Odst and Cydevil38 cannot even be consistent about what they are trying to prove. I guess its hard to coordinate to justify something when real, undeniable mistakes are made.Wiki Pokemon 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. How can there by two separate articles - Hwando fortress (redirected to mountain city) and Hwando (fortress)? I'm tired of you POVs. Hwando was a Korean city, it deserves a Korean title within its own context, no matter how it is named today. That's just like limiting Persia to the Iran article. You POVs started the Wandu Mountain City- all these POVish attempts are so laughable. This is exactly like their attempts to move Goguryeo to a Chinese title, etc. Also, I'm moving all titles to redirect to Hwando (fortress). I personally think that Hwando (city) is a better title. (Wikimachine 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

So, if this deletion request fails, I'll see that as mandate to move all related articles to Hwando (fortress) & I'll see no opposition. (Wikimachine 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

I'd like to remind the editors here that this is not a matter of differences in romanizations. If it was so, I would have done a WP:RM than create a new article. This is about two articles on two different subjects - the historic Goguryeo city of Hwando and a UNESCO World Heritage Site that's called "Wandu Mountain City". The two are not necessarily the same, and if this deletion doesn't get through, then both "Wandu Mountain City" and "Guonei City" should be merged to Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom. That article has plenty of room for those UNESCO Heritage Sites. Cydevil38 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV forks also account for the CONTENT of the article, in case they are meant to be a redirect page. I strongly disagree in moving the contents of Hwando (fortress) to Wandu mountain city. In Korean translation of 城, 城 means fortress. No Korean city was ever officially called OO城. In spoken Rhetoric, the suffix 城 was used to describe that it was in fact a Fortified City. Hanseong was a name used for the city, but its official name was always Hanyang. For Hwando, It was a fortress for much of its early history, and therefore was named Hwando Mountain fortress. Hwando-seong was mostly used in later days to describe the fortified entity which was now a city. It's just like Fort Collins. Fort Collins used to be a trading post, now it's a city. So as I was saying, Hwando is a fortress. There is no real term called "Mountain city"...It's called Mountain fortress. Odst 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In the original history record, 尉那巖城 (meaning: Weina Rock City; Pinyin:Weina Yan Cheng; Korean:Wina-am Seong) is the fortress of 國內城 (Pinyin: Guonei Cheng; Korean: Guknae Seong), which became the capital at 3 AD. Later in 198 AD, 尉那巖城 was chosen by Sansang of Goguryeo to be the new capital because 國內城 was sacked and damaged. To be the new capital, 尉那巖城 was renamed as 丸都城 (Meaning: Ball Capital; Pinyin:Wandu; Korean:Hwando). 丸都山城(meaning: Wandu Mountain City; Pinyin:Wandu Shan Cheng; Korean:Hwando San Seong) is also a valid name corresponding to the naming convention of 尉那巖城 (meaning: Weina Rock City) and 五女山城 (i.e.,Goguryeo's first capital). Before the 15th century, every record was written in classical Chinese, and there was no such thing called "Romanization" in the entire east Asia. Therefore, things like 尉那巖城, 國內城, 丸都城 are the ancient names used. In modern time, there are rules about how to romanize these ancient names in different romanization systems, which are not identical in many cases.--Jiejunkong 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell, the claim that Hwando is the ancient name is a false POV. In contrast, only 丸都 is the ancient name, with Wandu as its Pinyin romanization form and Hwando as its Korean romanization form. In addition, it is also dubious to say that "XYZ城", after translated into "XYZ fortress", became another different entity from "XYZ city". Note that none of the three users with this dubious POV have good credit on East Asia history and linguistics. Their personal claim is not verifiable. Otherwise, they are obliged to show the reliable sources which explicitly claim that "Wandu/Hwando fortress is different from Wandu/Hwando city". Cydevil38 has not stopped changing the article Hwando (fortress). I notice that he has copied some contents from Wandu Mountain City and inserted some dubious claims discussed above. If Hwando (fortress) is merged into Wandu Mountain City, the dubious claims should be filtered.--Jiejunkong 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify your sources. Cydevil38 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sources can be copied from Talk:Wandu Mountain City: Seoul National University's Kyujanggak Archives(奎章阁) has the PDF copy of all Samguk Sagi(三國史記), the canonical history record made by Goryeo to record historical events in Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla.
  • In Volume 13(page 18) of Samguk Sagi, it is said "(瑠璃王)二十二年冬十月，王遷都於國內，築尉那巖城"(English translation: On October of the 22nd year (of Yuri of Goguryeo), the Yuri King moved the capital to Guonei, and built the Weina Rock City). A temporal fact is that the 1st year of Yuri of Goguryeo is 19 BC, so the 22nd year is 3 AD. A geographic fact is that Guonei City was a city on Yalu River's plain, while Weina Rock City(尉那巖城) was the city in the mountain which was later renamed to Wandu(丸都) by Sansang of Goguryeo.
  • In Volume 16(page 21] of Samguk Sagi，it is said "(山上王)二年二月築丸都城"(English translation: On February of the 2nd year (of Sansang of Goguryeo), Wandu City was built). In page 23 of the same volume, it is said "(山上王十三年)十月，王移都于丸都"(English translation: On October (of the 13th year of Sansang of Goguryeo), the Sansang King moved the capital to Wandu). Note that the 1st year of Sansang of Goguryeo is 197 AD.
In particular, you need to read the PDF files to see the details, for example, how Gongsun Clan attacked Sansang of Goguryeo because of the conflict between Sansang and his brother. There are more original history record added to Talk:Wandu Mountain City to prove that 國內城 was sacked by Gongsun Clan in the battle. Then Sansang moved the capital to the mountain.--Jiejunkong 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how your sources clarify whether it is a "geographic fact" that Guknaeseong was a city on the plains and Hwandoseong was a city in the mountain. According to the records you cited, it can only be confirmed that 1. King Yuri moved the capital to Guknae(without "seong" or in English, "city") and built Wina-am Seong. 3. King Sansang built Hwando Seong and moved the capital there. And your additional records say nothing of Hwando or a mountain of any sort.
Also, you still didn't provide any sources to the following claims: 1. Wina-am Seong was a "city in the mountain". 2. Wina-am Seong was renamed to Hwando Seong. 3. The basis of the so-called "naming convention" of Wina-am Seong and Wunushancheng(I used Chinese romanization for this, because as far as I know, no such Goguryeo entity ever existed). 4. The basis that "Wunu Mountain City" was the capital of Goguryeo. Cydevil38 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot read sources written in Chinese, you need to seek help from an expert who can read these sources, before you claim anything against other people's explanation of such sources written in Chinese (including Samguk Sagi, the classical source considered by Koreans as their canonical record). Otherwise, it is a quite irresponsible attack against something you don't understand---you prescribed to be hostile against sources written in Chinese while you know prescribing is bad. (1) As to your questions about 國內城: Since you have claimed, in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, that you once were physically in Ji'an, Jilin, you should know that 國內城's ruin is on Tonggou Plain (通溝平原). I posted a reliable source Ji'an, Jilin's official website before, and I am surprised that you have trouble in understanding the geography after you already made the claim that you were there. Have a look at the picture of the city zone of present-day Ji'an, Jilin], 國內城's ruin locates at the southwest near suburban area of the city zone. Here is the picture of 國內城's ruin. It is not in the mountain. I wonder how one can confuse this 國內城's ruin with a city in the mountain. (2) 尉那巖城 (or later renamed as 丸都城/丸都山城 to be the "ball capital") is in the mountain. The Chinese character 巖 (Simplified Chinese:岩; Korean pronunciation:Am) means "Rock", and the Chinese character 山 means "Mountain". This city in the mountain is about 2.5km to the west of present-day Ji'an, Jilin's city zone. The 丸都山城's ruin is actually in a mountain with north side higher than the south side, see the picture shown in here. (3) As you are clearly against these sources, why don't you show your sources to justify your editings? May we see your sources?--Jiejunkong 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have already provided reliable sources in my first "keep" vote in this page that say the actual location of Hwando Seong is controversial. You have yet to provide any sources that reliably concludes that for certain Guknae Seong is the city on the plains and Hwando Seong is the one on the mountain(Sanzishancheng). And you still haven't answered many other requests for sources. Cydevil38 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First, you post a message to say that you were physically in Ji'an, Jilin in Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It looks like a show-off, which is by no means of fact checking, if you refuse to admit the geographic locations of Guonei City and Wandu Mountain City after you saw where the sites are. Second, Ji'an, Jilin's official website of the city is a reliable source. You may treat it like trash, but its officiality makes it a verifiable and reliable source. Otherwise, any Korean official sites like Seoul city's website cannot be referred to as a reliable source as well. Third, Chinese or Korean gain nothing by dividing 丸都城 from 國內城. Either 丸都城 and 國內城 are the same city, or 丸都城 and 國內城 are different cities, there is nothing favors or disfavors Chinese or Korean. The conclusion that 丸都城 and 國內城 are different cities 2.5km away from each other is drawn based on history records. Fourth, UNESCO's official site explicitly says the Ji'an's site includes archaeological remains of three cities and 40 tombs: Wunu Mountain City, Guonei City and Wandu Mountain City. If your English is good enough, you should know that this sentence refers to an ancient city called "Wandu Mountain City", while its archaeological remains are in Ji'an, Jilin right now. Your persistence in arguing against the clearly written English sentence is not neutral and solid.--Jiejunkong 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wandu Mountain City. This seems to be a transliteration war. If Unesco uses the term Wandu Mountain City, then so should WP. I have just edited Wandu Mountain City, so as to eliminate unecessary Chinese or Korean text. However the present article seems to ahve content not in that article. Both articles are quite short and should thus be mereged. Even if the fortess is one elemetn of the city (I do not know), there is no warrant for two separate articles, until a single article becomes too long. I understand the point about the problems of transcription. There is no reason why the alternative transcriptions should not appear in the article, with redirects from alternative versions of the name. If there are problems with the content, they should be resolved on the discussion page of the (merged) article. An AFD debate is not the right forum for this. Peterkingiron 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I support putting all major alternative transcriptions into the article. Hwando fortress, per Cydevil38's claim that this is the Korean term for the place, was considered as the Korean transcription at the beginning (see [[5]]), but Cydevil38 himself deleted it. Currently, it turns out that the term "Hwando fortress" itself is a controversial one which doesn't match the original script 丸都城 written in Samguk Sagi. "Hwando city" looks like the proper Korean transcription.--Jiejunkong 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is to be called "Hwando fotress" or "Hwando city" doesn't really concern me, because reliable English publications refer to the place as "Hwando" with various suffixes, such as "song" or "walled city" as well as "fortress". That is a minor dispute that I believe could be resolved without much distress. I only chose the term "fortress" because Doosan Encyclopedia claimed it may have been built as a defensive fortification of Guknae Seong. Again and again, this dispute is not over transliteration, but whether the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Wandu Mountain City can be seen as the equivalent of the historic entity of Wina-am Seong/Hwando Seong. Cydevil38 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article Wandu Mountain City is about the 2nd capital of Goguryeo written as 丸都 in Samguk Sagi. If you are talking about another city, input proper contents that are not directly related to this 丸都. Otherwise, I agree to Peterkingiron's comments that there is no need to fork the article.--Jiejunkong 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Jiejunkong, Are you saying that since it was written in Chinese characters, it should be called Wandu? that is ridiculous. That's like calling New York City Urbs Novum Eboracum, because Americans use the Roman alphabet. Wandu Mountain City is merely a name for UNESCO word heritage, and as Jiejunkong said, there is no romanization in Asia.

The Hwando is unrelated to Wandu mountain city. Hwando is about the fortress-turned capital and its history during ancient times. Wandu Mountain City is about the ruins of that site.Odst 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can claim that I said 丸都 should be translated into Wandu only. In contrast, I support any bilateral notion at the very beginning (see wikirecords [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]). And please stop trolling on the terms "fortress" and "city". There are many native English speakers here who can tell which one to use. For the Chinese character 城 (in the name 丸都城 originally recorded in the canonical history, e.g., Volume 16(page 21) of Samguk Sagi), it means "city". In Chinese, another character 堡 means "fortress".--Jiejunkong 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. All of the above is precisely why I called for a Speedy close at the outset. Let the WP:RFC/HIST or WikiProject History sort out naming and scope issues before merging, deleting or rediecting anything. Dbromage [Talk] 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately though, Jiejunkong seems reluctant to file a WP:RFC/HIST as advised. Cydevil38 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead what should be an AFD discussion has turned into a rehash of the content dispute that started it all. Is any admin prepared to call a speedy close until impartial experts in WikiProject History decide on the naming and scope issues? Dbromage [Talk] 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This AFD is about POV FORKING, not content dispute. Wikipedia standard policy requires a SPEEDY DELETE to such an article. No exception. This is a SERIOUS violation because failure to observe this rule will cause chaos and disruptions to the entire Wikipedia system. Dbromage [Talk] and Odst are suggesting that the POV fork be kept while debate continues is totally unacceptable. Wikipedia recomendation is exactly the opposite, delete the POV fork, then continue consensus building at the original article. Nlu is an administrator, I think he has explained above how such situation should be delt with. Wiki Pokemon 08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was a candidate for speedy deletion it could have been speedy deleted 5 days ago. We only have the nominator's assertion that it is a POV fork. The article creator's assertion is it is about a different subject. This is what the RFC was supposed to sort out. I consider this to be a very bad faith nom in ignoring the recommendation of the WQA to take it to RFC. Dbromage [Talk] 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If these are two different and independent articles, then there is no need to take both articles to RFC like you suggest, each can carry on happily. But that is not the case. By the way the RFC is for the original article only. Unlike what you think, the RFC is not for deciding which rival article is better and to keep. Contradictory to your comment, Wikipedia does not recommend WQA to take it to RFC in this situation. Wikipedia recommendation is to delete the rival article because of bad faith of the author(Cydevil)of the rival article(Hwando (fortress)). So far all your comments are contradictory to Wikipedia policy. Nlu is an administrator, he is familiar with the rules. Please read his comment above.Wiki Pokemon 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Dbromage. This IS the right forum for discussing whether an article should be deleted or merged or kept. It encourages editors and admins, otherwise unrelated to the topic, to comment. If it isn't discussed here, it goes back to the "slow track" at Talk:Hwando (fortress) / Talk:Wandu Mountain City. The slow track could take over 6 months to resolve, as was the case for Talk:State of Nangnang / Talk:Lelang Commandery.--Endroit 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is also a rule on Wikipedia that says "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I maintain that this nomination is bad faith. Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, Assume good faith.--Endroit 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just this, but everything else - for these same guys. This is in no way a POV fork but basically an attempt to correct a POVish attempt (especially Jiejunkong's, whose goal is to make Korean "Chinese") to create a new article about a Korean subject for which there was none before --> this sets stage for the "POV fork" accusation when ppl try to correct that. (Wikimachine 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Why are you, a ultra Korean nationalist, labeling other people with all kinds of bad faith words? You said my goal is to make Korean "Chinese"? Oh, am I capable of doing that? or is it your imagination? If you cannot read Samguk Sagi and Twenty-Four Histories, that's not my problem, I didn't write those books in classical Chinese. And you have no right to override the history with modern politics.--Jiejunkong 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point, putting aside the naming issue for this article, consensus also appears to favor merging the 2 articles Hwando (fortress) and Wandu Mountain City, while dropping the "fortress" designation.--Endroit 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think redirect is one more than merge.Wiki Pokemon 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right. I should have said that there is clear consensus AGAINST keeping the 2 articles Hwando (fortress) and Wandu Mountain City separate. Even Wikimachine's comment here suggested there shouldn't be 2 separate articles.
Let me add that since these 2 articles talk about the same thing in principle, a "merge" would have a similar effect as a "redirect" (and vice versa). Since some people disagree as to the naming of the article, a WP:RM should be initiated immediately after the impending "merge" / "redirect".--Endroit 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll take it then that these editors who agreed to "merge" or "redirect" would also agree that the article on "Wandu Mountain City" should primarily represent that of the historic Goguryeo entity, not its possible candidates for its remains today. Cydevil38 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please watch for your WP:POINT violations, Cydevil. The cited sources in English provide the basis for the article contents, per WP:V, rather than your gross misinterpretations. We all know that Wandu / Hwando are different romanizations of the same thing. The only thing people disagree on is the title of the "merged" / "redirected" article, which should have been settled by WP:RM procedure in the first place, rather than your creation of a WP:POVFORK.--Endroit 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, please assume good faith and don't make such accusations and assumptions about other people's edits. I have repeatedly expresed my disagreement with what the two articles should represent - one should be about the historic entity, while the other should be about a possible candidate for the historic entity's remains that recently has been designated the UNESCO World Heritage Site. Cydevil38 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is only one Wandu/Hwando (丸都) in the history of Goguryeo. UNESCO has declared their heritage site to be this Wandu/Hwando (丸都), by calling it "Wandu Mountain City". Any significant disagreements to this UNESCO decision can be mentioned in the same article, if such disagreements exist, and if you can provide a reputable source for them. No sense having 2 articles for the same thing.--Endroit 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We could have a move to Wandu Mountain City & then in the move provide 2 options - vote for Hwando or vote for Wandu & clarify that this move is two-sided. (Wikimachine 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Please don't get creative with the procedure. Stick with the procedure provided for by Wikipedia one at a time. First thing to do is to settle this POV fork violation through redirect. Then WP:RM if you want.Wiki Pokemon 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I can if I want to, & I'll take that as a compliment. Or else there will be 2 RMs - one from Wandu to Hwando & another Hwando to Wandu. Who's going to yield? (Wikimachine 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.