Talk:Seoul/Jongno

This page is for discussing the content of the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages, check out Using talk pages.

Comments

Updating 삼청동 수제비 in 'Eat' Section

Old Content - Popular for their unique dish, vegetables and pasta soup with pepper and a bit of seafood, which is called 녹두전 (nok du jeon), this place does not see many foreigners and service is a bit rough, but it can be a nice break from chili spicy food.

New Content - Canteen style ambiance, renown for serving good Sujaebi - a mild soup where the noodles are flattened and torn into sheets. Always packed so be prepared for a queue. ₩8000-13,000

I believe the old information needed correction. The hanguel, picture and food description all seemed to point to Samcheong Sujaebi but the content was at odds citing 'nok du jeon'. Jeons are usually pancakes I believe. AshA30 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guide status?

I feel this article should be a Guide, and then be a candidate for 'Star' in the future.

Does anyone object to an upgrade to 'Guide' for now? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to scan the article so as to express an opinion about that, but I'd point out that you don't need a consensus for such a change. I think everyone trusts you, and besides, changes of article status other than to or from Star can be reverted if anyone thinks differently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't really object to promoting it to Guide, though the Eat section could maybe have a couple more entries and be divided into Budget/Mid range/Splurge. ϒpsilon (talk)

About the Gwanghwamun square and the Gyeonghui-gung

I'm thinking of adding Gwanghwamun square at the top. Is that okay? Also, Gyeonghui-gung was located under the museum, so I moved it to palaces and added MMCA. Max980301 (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Too much in lede?

I just split the lead paragraph into two. I'm inclined to remove the entire second paragraph on grounds that such details do not belong in the lede. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Creating a Wikivoyage Article for the Historic and Well-Known Gyeongbokgung Palace

Swept in from the pub

Recently, Professor @Piotrus assigned me the task of writing a travel guide-style entry on Korea for Wikivoyage. I sought permission to focus on Korea's historic and renowned palace, Gyeongbokgung. @Piotrus advised me to consult with the community on Wikivoyage's Traveler's Pub to determine whether writing an article on Gyeongbokgung would be appropriate. I would like to pose this question to you. I've noticed that individual articles exist on Wikivoyage for China's Forbidden City and France's palace of Versailles. Given this, would it be suitable to create an article for Gyeongbokgung, which is one of the most important and historic palaces in Korea? To help with understanding, I will attach a link to an article about Gyeongbokgung written in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyeongbokgung Rukkha1024 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The standard for most destinations is found at Wikivoyage:What is an article? and is the "sleep test": a destination is typically a place where you can travel to and stay, sleeping there. Otherwise, it's not a destination itself, but a site to see at a larger destination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Well, the student did cite an example that seem to fail the sleep test: "There is no accommodation for visitors inside the Forbidden City". Versailles is a town, so that's fine. I also checked Agra#Taj_Mahal . So would you recommend writing about te palace under the town it is in? And what do we do about Forbidden City? Piotrus (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To be consistent, yes, but there are some rare exceptions to the sleep-here rule. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been reviewing UNESCO sites and some random articles. So all parks are fine because you can camp and sleep there. And Great Wall of China has an entry because the guide says you can also find some parts of it you can camp in... which seems stretching the sleep-here rule to an amusing degree IMHO. Piotrus (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I read the "Wikivoyage: What is an article?" page and noticed an "Exceptions" section that challenges the "sleep test."

From the cited examples, the Forbidden City and Angkor (a newly added example) maintain individual status despite not having accommodations for sleep. Additionally, the "Exceptions" section in "Wikivoyage: What is an article?" suggests Central Park as another example of an exception.

Although Gyeongbokgung is more modest in scale compared to the Forbidden City and Angkor, it is still both substantial and intricate.

What do you think of my opinion? Rukkha1024 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with this destination to have a meaningful opinion. I just wanted to direct you to the relevant policy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about the palace is quite substantial, but I would suggest working on the existing listing in Seoul/Jongno. If the listing gets so big with information that's relevant to travelers that it starts to dominate that district article, we could consider making it its own district, like the Forbidden City, but the thing is, there are five palaces listed in Seoul/Jongno#See. Would it serve the traveler well to make one of them its own district? What about the other palaces? Which ones if any should get an equivalent amount of coverage? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My primary goal is to introduce valuable palaces in Korea to travelers. Gyeongbokgung was the official residence of the kings of the Joseon Dynasty and carries significant historical and symbolic value. While the current article on Gyeongbokgung is still a stub, it has the potential to contain a wealth of information, much like articles on places such as the Forbidden City.

I aim to showcase Gyeongbokgung, a palace that holds both historical importance and symbolic significance within Korea's collection of palaces. Although the 'Seoul/Jongno#See' article introduces five palaces, none of the others, except for Changdeokgung, hold as much historical and symbolic importance as Gyeongbokgung.

In conclusion, I would like to introduce travelers to the most valuable palaces in Korea. While it's a sensitive task to assess the value of cultural heritage, given the limited resources available to foreign travelers, providing information on the most valuable palaces would be helpful. Rukkha1024 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Which ones - all? I am relatively inexperienced around here, but frankly, I think most big palaces/castles/museums should, eventually, have their dedicated guides here, with intererior maps and like. Piotrus (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rukkha1024, Piotrus: Consider following a similar approach taken on Canberra/Acton#Q509884 – that way, you can avoid having to have empty sections onward from Buy. Just a suggestion – feel free to take it with a grain of salt. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@SHB2000 Can you elaborate? I am not sure what it is that this article is supposed to demonstrate? Is this the correct link? Piotrus (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep – what I meant was all points of interest within the palace be listed as a subsection of the listing on Seoul/Jongno, or using double dot points (**). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The usual approach is to treat a palace, cathedral or other major building as an attraction within a destination article. If it is well-known add a redirect to the attraction listing to make it easier for readers to find & for editors to link to, e.g. Taj Mahal, The Alhambra, Buckingham Palace, British Museum and many others. I'd say treat Gyeongbokgung like that, a listing and a redirect.

Exceptions are mainly for things big enough to count as districts in a large city, e.g Forbidden City or large places outside a city, e.g Versailles or Angkor Archaeological Park. A building might also be moved to its own article if the listing became too large for the destination article, but looking at Seoul/Jongno#Palaces that does not seem to be the case here yet.

I'd say for now create a redirect and work on the listing. If it becomes huge, we can revisit the question of spinning it off to its own article. Pashley (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I truly understand your saying. Thanks! Rukkha1024 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have created a redirect at Gyeongbokgong. Pashley (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

One thing to look out for is to include too much detail to the listing. If we document every sculpture, any temple would get a huge listing. I don't know any relevant guidelines, but Rome/Vatican has quite long descriptions of the main sites (subsections, not just listings), which could be used for comparison. Is the Vatican format something to aim for or something to avoid? –LPfi (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Vatican article looks good to me. Way more detail is possible but not in style for this site. About Gyeongbokgong: It really is a large, complex attraction, as shown in the Wikipedia article about it. If you compare the sizes of the Forbidden City and Gyeongbokgong at the same scale on Google Maps, though, the Forbidden City is much bigger and has around twice the number of marked points of interest within in. I don't think the idea of a separate Gyeongbokgong article is at all crazy, but let's see how well we can do with a multi-faceted listing in the Jongno article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also consider what links might be added in higher-level articles such as Palaces which redirects to Grand houses or Monarchies; either of those might get a whole section on Korea. It would also be possible to add links in Pre-modern Korea or to create a travel topic article on "Korean palaces", a bit like Churches in Ethiopia. None of those should have the main info on Gyeongbokgong, though; that goes in a listing for now (perhaps an article later) with links from the articles mentioned. Pashley (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Korean article has a short listing for the Hwaseong Fortress (needs a redirect to Suwon). I think another student of mine wanted to write an article about that one but b/c of the issues we discussed here we decided to work on something else. I still believe Wikivoyage would benefit from having a dedicated article about it, because for example now we have 2+ not merged short listings for what is a relatively large, UNESCO-class attraction too, one that could use its own map etc. See Wikipedia article on it too. Piotrus (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Either way, what is definitely not OK is the current situation, in which this palace has an article that's breadcrumbed as a subdistrict of Jongno. I will merge and redirect that article to Seoul/Jongno#Palaces soon if no-one else does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Redirected to Seoul/Jongno#Gyeongbokgong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Default address information in listings

"Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea" is all default for this article. User:Ysrfield, User:Dbinni and User:Ydaeun0306, you've all added listings, which is great, but I believe you should be required to complete your assignment by cleaning up the "address" tabs in this (and any other) article to eliminate all the default information, so that the job is not left to the volunteers who will still be here when you are probably gone (although we thank you for your work and hope you will edit recreationally from time to time in the future!). Thank you, and here's a ping to User:Hanyangprofessor2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I agree. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)