Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2aae1d1e9b1eee6

Jump to content

Talk:Aho-dong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Andres in topic How notable?

How notable?

[edit]

Aho-dong (아호동) appears to be a tong in Haewŏl-myŏn (해월면), Paech'ŏn-kun (배천군), South Hwanghae, North Korea. We don't generally have articles for tong or myŏn, and we don't even have an article yet for Paech'ŏn-kun. I suspect that the Aho-dong article may have been started just because it showed up as a place name on some online weather maps near the DMZ. But since it is such a minor locality, we may never have enough information about it to flesh out the article, leaving it therefore in perpetual orphan status. --Reuben 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A merge to Paechon is probably best, once that article has been created. There are former administrative divisions of Pohang that have a higher web profile than this little burg. I think the "tong" in this case does not denote an administrative division, but simply "village" -- since Paech'ŏn is a county, it is unlikely to have any tong. If Aho has any administrative existence at all, it is likely to be as Aho-ri. And even in South Korea it's quite difficult to find reliable information about individual ri. -- Visviva 12:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Update: At least according to the 1982 edition of the Bukhan Chongram (p. 65), there is no Aho-ri in Paechon (and no Aho-dong either). One suspects this is an archaic place name, used for convenience by the weather people. At any rate, should definitely be merged. -- Visviva 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

23,553 is not the population of this place. In the website linked it is described as the approximate population in the radius of 7 km of a point. Andres (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And this is not a city. Andres (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply