Jump to content

Talk:Daegu

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

Population

[edit]

The article says 4 largest and bigger then Incheon but article about Icheon says that it has 2,466,338 and Daegu has 2,500,000 which means Daegu must be bigger and therefor number 3 biggest?? Lennart.larsen 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of the 2000 census, Daegu was larger, although not by very much. However, according to citizenship registration figures (somewhat less reliable than the census), Daegu had a population of 2,539,738 [1] at the end of 2004, while Incheon had 2,610,715 [2]. More tellingly, Daegu's population appears to be dropping slightly, while Incheon is continuing to grow. So until the census results of 2005 are announced, Daegu may technically remain the 3rd-largest city, but there does not seem to be much doubt that it has been surpassed by Incheon. Pity, really... I can't understand how people can survive in Incheon, let alone what might drive them to move there. Anyway, I guess this info should be added to the article. -- Visviva 11:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the article and I fixed their attempted change. Clearly, the cities are about the same size, but the official government [website] lists the order as Seoul, Busan, Daegu and then Incheon so that's how I left it.Swegner 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But actually the results of the 2005 census have been released by the NSO in Korean (not yet in English by KOSIS)... The results (or rather a summary) can be downloaded in PDF or HWP from here. On page 13, we find that Incheon's 2005 total was 2,531,000; on the other hand, Daegu's population fell slightly to 2,465,000. Sad but true: Daegu is now #4. -- Visviva 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: The above link is now broken, but I have added a ref with a stable link to the online NSO database. There doesn't seem to be much doubt; and in fact today I found 2003 statistics that already showed Incheon in the lead; guess it would be overkill to cite that. It is really a pity; I can't imagine how anyone could choose to live in Incheon (or even how what Incheon offers could be called "life"), but there seem to be about 2.5 million people who feel otherwise. -- Visviva 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anon. IP account used for vandalism only is responsible for changing the introductory text that states and sources that Daegu is No. 4 according to the 2005 census. I've been changing it back, but I urge the anon. vandal to READ the introductory paragraph and this part of the talk page. Your edits are false and cannot be tolerated by this encyclopaedia project. Mumun 無文 11:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fame of Daegu Yeoja, Seongju apples, etc

[edit]

it might be difficult to provide citations for assertions such as the ones about the fine 50% of Daegu and apples, which by the way are offically Seongju apples, I think (didn't realize that they were exported, however, which is what the statement in the article implies). These are popular cultural assertions that everyone living in the local area hears and incorporates into their realities as Gyeongbuk people, and so they are important to include in articles such as this. How shall we deal with providing citations for such popular well known beliefs? Perhaps there are Korean publications about local Daegu culture that we can cite? PLease give your thoughts. Mumun 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting conundrum... For the first point, surely a photo of Dongseongno on a Saturday night would put any disputes to rest.  :-) There must be a semi-reliable source that at least touches on the matter, but so far this Ohmynews piece is the closest thing I've found, and a random citizen journalist's opinion probably isn't enough. 지리로 읽는 대구 이야기 has a whole chapter on the men and women of Daegu, but from a purely demographic perspective. At any rate, the bit about the apples is fairly solid; I see export is mentioned in 내고장 의미찾기: 대구권역편, circa 1995, p. 51, and also here (and I'm sure better sources are out there). Although how "famed" they are I can't say. In general, I think we can find sources for most things that are worthy of note, but it will require some work. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits to Daegu people

[edit]

looks like vandalism, especially the stuff about biting fishcakes, etc. Would the persopn who added this highly unusual material please explain themselves fortwith? Of what importance is such material for an encyclopaedia that is supposed to introduce Daegu to the general public. Relevance? Mumun 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph. The parts that weren't bizarre, unreferenced & irrelevant simply duplicated information from the "History" section. -- Visviva 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen soccer team

[edit]

What is a "citizen soccer team", of which we say that Daegu FC is one of the best? Does it simply mean an amateur team? 219.78.126.3 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daegu. 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) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Daegu. 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) 06:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content in this article

[edit]

In May there were a number of problematic, promotional edits to this article by an account that might have been associated with the city in some way. They can be seen here. Help in eliminating promotional language would be appreciated, per WP:PROMO and WP:WEASEL. Dekimasuよ! 17:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My fixes from today can be seen here. Please feel free to add anything warranted, but please also be careful not to readd promotional language or content. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's October now and I just reverted some more edits by the same user that were made a month after you posted this. These edits also seemed promotional. I just thought that I should continue this section of the talkpage Dekimasu, to let everybody know that this might be a reoccurring issue and I also had to change a large potion of the article and that deserves more explanation than I put in my edit summary. Anyway, I hope my reversions were okay. Some other edits got caught in the cross hairs and I'm going to try and restore them if still relevant. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

[edit]

Xxpooun, I am summoning you here to talk about the fact that you just reverted all my edits, including reverting my reversion of the content added by daegucity.kr. Most of the stuff added by them was unsourced and, in my opinion, a violation of W:NPOV. Such examples include information about the cities logo & brand character replacing the city's history, the sections talking about site-seeing written in the second person(a violation of WP:YOU, the deletion of all mentions of accidents. There might also be some violation of MOS:HEAD with the fact that a bunch of the section headings are bolded, but I'm not 100% sure on that. There's also with the issue that that large majority of sources got deleted. Basically, would you like to talk about this here in the talk section? Thanks for your time! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things to object to in daegucity.kr's two edits on September 26th. The user removed a LOT of content (some 22,xxx bytes) without explanation, summaries, or consensus, while adding unsourced material and changing section headings. Also there is bad English there, such as "Based on the excavation of relics back to the Paleolithic Age in Wolseong-dong, Dalseo-gu, Daegu." (not a complete sentence) and "Daegu is a basin topography...". Mark Froelich (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material Removal

[edit]

daegucity.kr Hi, I just reverted some of your edits(again, I'm sorry!) and as I stated I'm continuing to discuss them here on the talk page. Basically, I reverted them because other wikis aren't generally considered to be reliable sources. Also, some of your information was repetitive, like the section on Daegu becoming a metropolitan city. That information was already in the previous section. There's also the issue of some of the headings violating MOS:HEAD, with being bolded and with adding inline citations directly in the header. Finally, some of the information, while it may be verifiable, doesn't seem worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Information about the number of households in the city, for instance, while an interesting statistic, doesn't seem notable enough to be a part of the encyclopedia article. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I just figured that we could sort this out on the talk page rather than through edit summaries and possible gather others' inputs. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


daegucity.kr Hello again, I hope I'm pinging you right! I see that you reverted the material removal I did, which is a-ok, but you didn't leave an edit summary explaining why you did, and those same violations I spotted are still in the text? I'd just like to talk here before we get into an edit war or something, so I'm reverting you again. The bolding of the heading is something I don't want to stand, because I'm pretty sure it's an issue for vision-impaired viewers who have to use screen readers, and everything else I explained pretty clearly up above I think. (please, let me know if I didn't) I'd just like to come to an agreement here! Thank you so much for when you take the time to respond! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there was another questionable statement in the removed material. It was mentioned that Daegu was the "final bastion of the Korean War of defencing (sic) against the North" in June of 1950. Surely, that would've been the Busan Perimeter later in the year, no? Mark Froelich (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian Hello, I just want to update the page. And I do not understand why my edits especially on the population numbers on every Daegu districts, kinds of industry that Daegu has, Universities and locations in Daegu, etc are promotional content. Are they consider as promotional content? Thank you. Daegucity.kr (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daegucity.kr I wasn't really calling your most recent edits promotional, the users on your talk page were so if you want a good response, I'd recommend asking them! (I briefly said that they might have NPOV issues, but I was more focusing on the RS aspect of it) However, it does seem that your edits were promotional, especially those concerning the population numbers. Generally, population breakdowns by exact sex and the number of households would not be considered as notable, although verifiable. However, in this case what is especially making this addition troubling is the lack of reliable sources. Other Wikipedia are never reliable sources, but even still, that information you cited does not appear to be in the Korean article. Claiming that information comes from a particular source when the information is not in fact included in that source is a bad idea. It's possible that it changed since you added, I don't speak Korean so I can't check other than with Googletranslate, but it's another reason why Wikipedia tends to make a bad source. This problem is again seen in the other information you added.
Also, a lot of the way you phrased your information would be better fitted to a tourist guide rather than an encyclopedia. "Becoming a Metropolitan City" for example. It's a bit vague and it also runs against the guidelines of Wikiproject:Cities. Also, the information it had was already included in the above section "Partition" This, when combined with the fact that your account is named after the city and the korean domain ending, makes your additions seem more promotional.
I'm sorry that's not very specific or probably helpful. I'm really bad at explaining other's ideas, so you might have a lot more luck if you go and ask them! Regardless, I'm really glad I got to talk to you finally here on the talk page. You seem really devoted to trying to make this page better and I'm sure we'll work this out eventually! Also, sorry for waiting a couple of days before responding. There's been some earthqaukes where I live and I haven't been able to sit down and edit in any detail until now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian Hello, thank you for your reply, explaining the mistakes in details. I have more understanding about the situation and my edits. But of course I have lots to learn. I did cited my edits with book reference and an updated 2018 Korean document about Daegu city, why do you think those edits be referred also? I hope you are well in your country and we can work this out with updated information on the page. I still have photographs and sightseeing places to add in but I am afraid if I edit again, I will be blocked or something. I would love to make this page updated and syncwith the Korean page as well but my English is a limit in some ways. What do you suggest I do now?Daegucity.kr (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daegu&oldid=1211806481"