Style-tagged: Section headers are consistent with Wikivoyage, but the information contained within is a muddled mess (copied from an external source perhaps?) Started to re-jig things myself, but without someone local to confirm and expand things, I'm afraid if I do any more it'll become more obtuse. Snave(gah, auto-logged out again)211.238.162.70 12:06, 17 February 2011 (EST)
The existing banner has a somewhat neater composition and less usual content for a Wikivoyage pagebanner, but I'd be willing to consider arguments for why the new pagebanner would represent the city better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Apologies, it is not a shopping mall but rather the "Gwangju Metropolitan City Hall & Asia Culture Center" . That said the building isn't that interesting if you take the night time lights away. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The proposed banner is Asia Culture Center (ACC). Gwangju hadn’t particular landmarks before, but now ACC became a new landmark in 2015. It is located in the urban area and close to Geumnam-ro and Chungjang-ro streets which are main and central streets of Gwangju. Furthermore, Gwangju stands a symbol of culture in Korea historically. There is an age-old word to call the city, 예향광주 (Yehyang-Gwangju, Gwangju, the Arts’ Hometown, the Cultural Capital), and I think this word is a representable expression to prove the identity of the city. To emphasis on the position, the Korea Government has been put stress on investments in terms of the facilities, such as Gwangju biennale, ACC, the neighborhood of Yangnim & Chilseok dong district, and so forth. The existing banner seems like Gwangju World Cup Stadium, and there are tons of stadiums in the world, and actually, except for baseball, Gwangju is not much of a hand at playing a sort of sports. That is the reason why I want to change the banner. --VisitGwangju (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I understand your reasoning, but the point of a pagebanner is to be visually arresting. Can you make an argument for how your proposed replacement is more visually impressive or appealing than the current one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I browsed Wikimedia but couldn't see any fantastic alternatives. I'll have a go with Flickr later tonight (Flickr is blocked in my current work location) Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just wanna emphasize the Gwangju’s symbol of the light. The provenance of the name, Gwangju, is literally 'light province.' 광 = 光 (meaning of light in Chinese character), 주 = 州 (meaning of village in Chines character). A pure Korean word of Gwagnju is also 빛고을 (Bit-goeul, the light province). Gwangju has been interested in displaying the meaning of ‘Light.’ After a series of efforts, Gwangju was designated as ‘The Unesco Creative Cities Network of Media Arts’(UCCN) in 2014. There are the nation's largest photonics research institutes and factories in Cheomdan district, and many photonics conventions are also held in the city. Night view of ACC or whatever ‘light’ things is suitable for banner. --VisitGwangju (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks VisitGwangju , I do appreciate that Korean town names have these meanings (see Miryang's banner for an example of sunshine in keeping with its name). That said the image quality itself is important, not just something representative of the town's name. Criteria for banners can be found here if that helps you: Wikivoyage:BannersAndrewssi2 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, a bit of blown sun, but is there a way that option 2 could be cropped on the left, such that the text box were over the sun? Right now, that area of blown sunlight would be just to the right of the text box, which I think is not acceptable. And aside from the problems with the direct sunlight in option 3, I'm not feeling that satisfied with the picture quality. One advantage of the current banner is that it's quite a neat photograph. I'm definitely open to considering a panorama banner, though. Perhaps earlier, before the sunlight has gotten so strong? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I still care about the posted banner. In my opinion, the present banner has no representativeness of Gwangju and distinction between the other cities. I was looking for the better photo to it, unfortunately, some dope pictures are protected by copyright, or has low-resolution. And I found a decent picture that Gwangju city hall owns the copyright on it. Today, I got permission to post the picture from the city hall, so Plz confirm it. There are no ‘light’ or ‘cultural’ things to symbolize Gwangju, but at least, it contains panorama of Gwangju and Mt. Mudeungsan, so-called Mother of Gwangju, and it is somewhat appropriate for it in my view. --VisitGwangju (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I assume that is your own picture and is Creative Commons compliant? If so, can we have a higher resolution version as well? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Would you like to make a pagebanner from that high-resolution photo? (By the way, you should clean up a dust spot in the middle top, near the top margin.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please don't worry about overloading commons. That is really not your concern (resource management is the concern of the Commons admins, not the business of anyone else) Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
User:VisitGwangju put up this "Districts" section. Regardless of whether a city officially has districts, we don't create separate district articles unless there's so much content in the article for the entire city that it risks overwhelming the reader. Karachi is a city of at least 15 million, yet there is only one Wikivoyage article for the city.
Do you anticipate that there will be more than 3 times this much content on Gwangju when you are done adding content? If not, I don't see the point in subdividing it into separate district articles.
In terms of helping visitors orient themselves, it would be fine to add an "Orientation" subsection to "Understand" or "Get around", explaining what the important landmarks and streets are, and mentioning something about the districts that will be important to visitors, but I think things should be kept reasonably simple, for ease in understanding.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Right now they are organized by cuisine, which is permitted on this site. However, if there is much difference in price between restaurants within these categories, it might be helpful to organize them by price, too. It's actually most typical to organize first of all by price category, but that's not required. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest ====Budget====. Basically, since this would be a 3rd-order subdivision of the article, use 4 equals signs, rather than 3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Français
Italiano
