Jump to content

Talk:Changgyeonggung

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

English name

[edit]

Wouldn't Changgyeong Palace be a better English name? Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable images

[edit]

Valuable is a subjective statement. wikipedia is not a photoblog or a tourist guide, so what reason to we have to give this much attention to photos of the subject? If this subject is so important shouldn't we have significantly more prose in the article and then work the images in to the article? Currently the images heavily outweigh the text in this article and it creates an imbalance.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be good if the article could be expanded, even to Featured Article status. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the question of the gallery. You want to include (or so I take from your reversion), and I don't feel its necessary. If you feel its so valuable please expand on that here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, "it's" is spelled with an apostrophe, as it is a contraction of "it" and "is." Regarding the images, they depict a multifarious complex, with many subsections. None is duplicative of another, and it's quite clear by now that your view that large Korean building complexes should be represented by a single image does not have community support, for obvious reasons. Removing all of them with no prior discussion nor consensus does not assist in making this the most encyclopedic article on this subject possible. Badagnani (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having a serious issue with WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL during this discussion. Between the several talk pages you've participated in you can't seem to make a comment without making an unfounded accusation, insinuation, or attempting to misrepresent what was said. I've repeatedly stated that I felt there needs to be a balance of images and text in articles and with the exception of unique facets of a subject that are absolutely necessary for understanding it, images should be interspersed throughout the text. More text means the possibility of more images. At any point that you'd like to continue the discussion in a civil manner you're free to do so and I will happily engage in that discussion. But to this point you've failed to demonstrate what insight and understanding of the subject these images so crucially provide that they need to presented as such to unbalance this article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tone is fine. You've been told by more than one editor to moderate your comments and have failed to do so. Reminding your to read policy and conduct yourself accordingly is not hostile, aggressive or otherwise, nor does it change the issue that there is no supporting evidence for the gallery.--Crossmr (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to currently be living in South Korea, and I bet you know this palace does not comprises of "one building". The gallery provides different buildings and aspect of the palace. The decision over "imbalance between image and text" is not fully up to your mind. I really am bemused at your choice of the good gallery example. The article of Champmol already has an image of the tombs on the main space, and the gallery shows different angles of them. But you felt okay to delete images depicting "different buildings" and "artifacts designated as national treasures". That is contradictory of your standard. --Caspian blue 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it fully up to your mind. Have you looked at champmol? Yes it already has an image of the tombs in the main space, and I stated that I thought that was a good gallery with the caveat that the duplication should be removed. Here is what I stated on the IUP page though I would discourage any duplication in content between the images. When you raised the issue on the IUP page, I stated this in a reply to you: if you notice when I said the gallleries for champol were good I stated that I felt the duplication of the tombs image should be removed, but otherwise they were good examples of galleries. Since you've already been informed of this fact (since you edited that page since I made that comment) I can only see this as a further attempt to misrepresent what I've said. The difference between Champmol and this article is in the size of the article. That article contains a lead, 3 large sections and a small section. This article contains a lead and a bullet list. Expand this article to a similar size to Champmol and I would have no issue with there being an appropriate gallery in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This campaign is becoming increasingly disruptive. The wish to always have the last word and be "right" indicates that this is being done to prove a WP:POINT, and to "teach another editor a lesson." This is the furthest thing from our aims as a project. Let's work together to create the best possible articles, not conduct campaigns against a particular contributor's contributions. Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is not disruptive. I've attempted to discuss this gallery as you've both requested, but you seem to be continually attempting to steer the discussion away from that as your last two comments to this page have nothing to do with the article at all.--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've presented example after example of castles with several buildings, the necessity to often have several images to be fully encyclopedic, etc., yet your response is always essentially, "I am right and will continue to remove images from articles en masse, without discussing on the individual articles' discussion pages." This makes it difficult to continue discussing. Badagnani (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I will continue to remove the articles en masse? I said that I felt the article was too small to contain so many images as I stated above. I also see no examples of any castles above. No links, nothing. WHere did you provide those?--Crossmr (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try to expand the article up to the similar amount of Champmol instead of deleting all galleries from Korean related articles? As you see, many articles are in a transient status, and you removed the valuable materials that current articles can not give in full. Do you know how much percentage of readers would figure out a link to Commons page? I bet a lot of people would not even know the function. Besides, I've also seen many "editors" (not newbies) here struggling to be familiar with "Commons" for a long time. I've also been heard of complaints about articles having no gallery or image. How do I know? I've helped them to get to know image policies, but why you trying to demand that I should do more. Why don't you build up and expand articles since you're so concerned about balance between text and image.--Caspian blue 03:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the appropriateness of the gallery in the article in its current state. Not some potential future article that might exist. You are fluent in Korean are you not? Most of the sources on this subject are in Korean. So why don't you read some of those korean sources and add more content to the article. You're in a far better position to do that. But even if that is done at some point it doesn't address the gallery now.--Crossmr (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already presented the appropriateness of the gallery in here. Please do not circulate the issue any more. Most of sources are Koreans, but if you try hard, you will get as many English sources as you get if you aim to WP:DYK. You're fluent in English and can read Korean. Unjusa is a good example that the creator had a difficulty of getting English sources first, but he managed to expand the article to that much. I can not edit Wikipedia all the time. (a great deal of my time have been wasted here though).--Caspian blue 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Changgyeonggung. 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) 12:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Changgyeonggung. 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) 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shows & Movies Filmed here

[edit]

Would it be okay to add a table of the shows that were filmed here?

EX: Busted, Season 2, Episode 3 Maelfa (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Maelfa[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Changgyeonggung&oldid=1206618468"