| Revision as of 16:59, 25 August 2008 editBrianyoumans (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users19,377 edits →Joseon tongsinsa: merge← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:38, 25 August 2008 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits response -- thinking this through a bit more fully?Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. ] (]) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. ] (]) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' to ]. It is ridiculous to have both. I suspect this is based on info that was on tongsinsa.org, back when it existed. The Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations, and commemorated in an . I think the subject is notable, especially given the festival, but some actual refs should be found. If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub. ] (]) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' to ]. It is ridiculous to have both. I suspect this is based on info that was on tongsinsa.org, back when it existed. The Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations, and commemorated in an . I think the subject is notable, especially given the festival, but some actual refs should be found. If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub. ] (]) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :At first blush, the merge of ] and ] would seem obvious; but combining two separately-created unsourced articles produces only a larger problem -- a systems-focused solution which only appears to be a constructive step towards something better, but which does nothing to resolve the content issues -- see ]. | |||
| :This article was created by an anonymous contributor who also abandoned a similarly-composed article about tomb mounds near ]. I wonder if there is some kind of hidden POV-driven agenda which makes sense in some sort of skewed ]-informed analysis? I certainly hope that there are other, better and more innocent explanations for this ..., but without more, even this kind of extreme possibility can't be ruled out. | |||
| :The first line at ] is on-point in this context: | |||
| :::'' "The <u>threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is ]</u>, not ] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." '' | |||
| :This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with ] -- we just don't know ...? | |||
| :I foresee problems in what you modestly suggest, "If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub." The problem is implicit in your verb -- "reduce." The critical editing you propose would inevitably involve parsing the text: What to leave in? What to edit out? | |||
| :Even with strict adherence to ], that task quickly becomes an impossible-to-navigate, ever-changing mine field of objections, indignation, misunderstandings. I don't have the temerity to broach a Sisyphean struggle without looking for alternatives .... | |||
| :I was hoping that by listing this article here, it might be pulled within the ambit of ''']'''? --] (]) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:38, 25 August 2008
Joseon tongsinsa
- Joseon tongsinsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. Tenmei (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Joseon tongsinsa. It is ridiculous to have both. I suspect this is based on info that was on tongsinsa.org, back when it existed. The Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations, and commemorated in an annual festival. I think the subject is notable, especially given the festival, but some actual refs should be found. If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- At first blush, the merge of Joseon tongsinsa and Joseon Tongsinsa would seem obvious; but combining two separately-created unsourced articles produces only a larger problem -- a systems-focused solution which only appears to be a constructive step towards something better, but which does nothing to resolve the content issues -- see Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Deletion.
- This article was created by an anonymous contributor who also abandoned a similarly-composed article about tomb mounds near Pyeongyang. I wonder if there is some kind of hidden POV-driven agenda which makes sense in some sort of skewed Pyeongyang-informed analysis? I certainly hope that there are other, better and more innocent explanations for this ..., but without more, even this kind of extreme possibility can't be ruled out.
- The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:
- "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
- This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view -- we just don't know ...?
- I foresee problems in what you modestly suggest, "If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub." The problem is implicit in your verb -- "reduce." The critical editing you propose would inevitably involve parsing the text: What to leave in? What to edit out?
- Even with strict adherence to WP:V, that task quickly becomes an impossible-to-navigate, ever-changing mine field of objections, indignation, misunderstandings. I don't have the temerity to broach a Sisyphean struggle without looking for alternatives ....
- I was hoping that by listing this article here, it might be pulled within the ambit of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron? --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)