| Revision as of 01:57, 17 December 2008 editCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →Valuable images← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:13, 17 December 2008 edit undoBadagnani (talk | contribs)136,593 edits →Valuable imagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :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. ] (]) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | :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. ] (]) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::You seem to be having a serious issue with ], ] and ] 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.--] (]) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | ::You seem to be having a serious issue with ], ] and ] 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.--] (]) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Kindly moderate your tone. ] (]) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:13, 17 December 2008
Korean: Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); Hanja: Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help)
English name
Wouldn't Changgyeong Palace be a better English name? Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Valuable images
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)
- It would certainly be good if the article could be expanded, even to Featured Article status. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)