Jump to content

Talk:Insa-dong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyvio

[edit]

This page is very similar to http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/SH/SH_EN_7_2.jsp?cid=273731 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turpie (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why no one looked into this. The majority of the article was created in one edit [1], which looks like a cut-and-paste from http://english.triptokorea.com/english/viewtopic.php?t=12625&view=previous&sid=68c187c287995794d929fd8a5078ec1e . --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Currently, we have one reference about Insadong and a second that mentions it rather prominently. I think we need another specifically about Insadong to meet the general WP:N criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be difficult to find. I haven't even really started searching, and I've already found the place used as the title of a Korean novel (Insadong Blues) and a chapter in an English-language book on urban design (Anywise). Look around instead of demanding that others do the work, and you may find something constructive to add too, and may learn something in the process. I might do some work on the article due to a request from an editor whom I know has an actual interest in improving the article, rather than playing Wiki-cop. Dekkappai (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BATTLE --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how requesting that you do some of the work for which you tagged the article constitutes a "Battle". Anyway, here's Worldcat search in English. I count four books with Insadong in the title. I've got access to the one that has a chapter on the neighborhood. A search in Korean brings up 3,403 hits. No doubt they're not all useful, but does a possibility that the subject may be "notable" suggest itself? Anyway, I'll try do some work on the article tonigh-- unless you beat me to it. Dekkappai (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply don't make such requests, per WP:BATTLE. Instead, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...demanding more from other users." Ah, so tagging for sourcing/notability/verification without doing any work oneself violates "battle." I've always had a gut-feeling this sort of vandalism was against some Wiki-rule. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Dekkappai (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Stop disrupting this talk page. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

[edit]

Good job on the rewrite everyone. Looks like it's on track to WP:GA, rather than being a copyright violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Now can we trim down the external links per WP:ELNO, especially ELNO#1, ELNO#4, and ELNO#5? For an article like this, properly referenced, there's little need for any external links at all. Given the topic and past spamming problems, it would be best to keep the list short and free from anything that would attract further spamming. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we run into interpretation differences here. I believe in following book-form-- listing all an article's sources alphabetically at the end of the article, separate from the Footnotes, as in a regular book's Bibliography. The one FA I helped write followed this style. #4 & #5 are referenced in the article. I put these in "External links" only because they are online sources, though I'd prefer putting them under "Bibliography"-- possibly justifiable as they are online copies of print-sources. Some of what is currently under "Bibliography" might more accurately be called "Further reading" or "Insadong in literature."
Slightly off-topic, but relevant to some of the disputes here: Another interpretation problem we seem to be butting our heads about is the definition of "spam". There seems to be an idea going around that an appropriate link, used in appropriate articles is "spam" if it is linked in many articles. I don't think this fits under either of Wikipedia's definition of "spam": i.e., "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." "Spamming" linked to: "the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately." Dekkappai (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a spammer adjusted the links to put the one he was spamming first. Once again, the links were removed. Once again, the links were restored with the claim they both are somehow "official sites". Time for some further dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted several edits made by editor 112.222.74.196, and finally had him blocked for vandalism an hour ago. (I did leave a couple of their edits intact.) The editor was adding similar links to many articles, not explaining them, and not answering comments to their user page. Therefore, the source of the links was highly suspect.
Dekkappai, you just restored these links by a vandalism editor with the justification that they are official sites. Generally a company or a group is allowed one official link. Not several. A link that is otherwise inappropriate does not magically become appropriate, simply because a Wikipedia editor decides to add the word "official" to the description. One link I deleted is to a description of a shopping area [2]. It is not encyclopedic, has much advertising language, and no citations. There's no justification for adding it. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/9 link is spam based on the main page of the site. It seems to exist to allow you to book reservations and such, and provides information about the areas. The other two links, however, are official government sites, and should stay. There is no hard and fast rule that there can only be one official site. Two official links is hardly overkill or spamming by any stretch of the imagination. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nihonjoe. You are correct that there is no strict limit to official sites -- or indeed to the number of external links as a whole. I would argue against, however, an official link to the dong, and an official link to the Jongno-gu district, and an official link to the city of Seoul, and an official link to the government site of South Korean. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm to all possibly relevant subjects. External links are meant to amplify the content of specific articles -- they are not links to anything at all that "someone might find interesting. The external links should have a scholarly purpose. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading

[edit]

I think a better heading title for the "features" section should be found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Places of interest?" Dekkappai (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the section is more a description of the place though... Any better suggestions? Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insa-dong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Insa-dong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insa-dong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadong palace?

[edit]

Is this where Sadong palace was? 180.219.56.45 (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insa-dong&oldid=1199377804"