Talk:Heian Palace

message: I added back the removed geographical coordinates of Suzakumon. They were moved from this article to the article on Suzakumon, where they are obviosly also appropriate. However, the location of the main gate (together with the schematic map of Heian-kyō) provides a convenient way of giving the location of the old palace in the main article and finding it on online maps. Alternatives would be to give the centre point (which would be less useful for locating on maps) or all four corners of the palace (too many coordinates). Stca74 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem. Fg2 12:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: I have failed this article based on the GA criteria, which almost seems a shame because bsaed purely on quality of writing and effort expended etc the article is in very good shape, it simply fails to meet a few of the criteria formally demanded of a good article. Some of these are trivial to address but some might take some time to fix. In detail:
*1a clear prose and good grammar:
:*A few spelling errors such as "adopted by Japan from Chine". Generally fine though, pass on this criterion
*1b MOS layout:
:* cannot find MOS page referencing it but the constant use of bold text is unnecessary and distracting and I'm sure it doesn't adhere to MOS - fail on this criteria
*2a provides references:
**fail on this criteria, use of ISBN numbers in cites is welcome and good to see but there is no bibliography provided at all
*2b cites sources:
:*fails on this criteria due to failure to provide page numbers for the cites
*2c no original research
:*passes on this criteria, no evidence of original research at all
*3a addresses major topics:
:*passes on this criteria, covers all expected topics
*3b stays focused:
:*passes on this criteria
*4 netural and unbiased:
:*pass on this criteria, article seems neutral
*5 stable:
:*pass on this crtieria, no sign of any ongoing edit war etc
*6 images appropriate and licensed:
:*articles seem to be appropriately licences and are relevant to the article. Schematic plans are an unexpected bonus
Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: :: Thanks for the essentially positive GA review above. I have addressed some of the criteria while leaving some untouched. In more detail:
::* 1b MOS layout: matter of taste. I did not find any guidelines either, but decided to cut most of the bold-faced letters, leaving only the names of the three main compounds within the palace. Don't know if this improves readability or not, but I don't object either.
::* 2a provides references: Here I do not understand the comment. The References section (to which the footnotes point) is the bibliography of the article. In addition to it, further web site bibliography is provided in External links. I checked the GA criteria and the links to :WP:CITE according to which (i) a section for listing references separately from notes is optional and (ii) if there is a separate bibliography section, it is usually not meant to repeat the items in the Notes/References section. And in any case, the References section indeed contains all the sources I would incoprprate in a separate Bibliography section.
::* 2b cites sources: According to :WP:CITE again, Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. As the references in the article do not fall under the first set of items, page numbers are not required by the GA criteria. In fact, as there are several notes to a reasonably small number of sources, providing the page numbers for each note would require an individual item for each note, with 13 lines for the first article referenced, completely cluttering the article. The articles referenced are also relatively short, and thus finding the corresponding pages for verification purposes is straightforward.
:: My understanding of the GA criteria is that the article indeed passes 2a and 2b. This is further supported by a quick review of recently passed GA articles and also FA articles (e.g., Aikido among Japan-related articles), where the same approach to references and footnotes can be seen. Thus, in order to see if my interpretation of the citation guidelines find support, I'm putting this article up to GA review. Stca74 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point that Stca74 did not promote his own article in any way. I did. I was nit aware of the GA/R procedures at the time, and it seemed to me that it was actually passing. This is why I jumped to promotions. Thanks for the GA/R crash course. --SidiLemine 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Submitted to [[WP:GA/R|GA Review]] to get clarity on guidelines for citing sources and providing references

message: [User:Gryffindor]]'s edit removed the following links, identifying them as "superfluous" ...:
* Kyoto Gosho
* List of palaces
* Ōmiya Palace
I have restored them temporarily in order to provide an opportunity for further discussion.  My arguments for maintaining these links are three-fold: 
# I think they should stay because I personally found them helpful.
# If they are, in fact, deemed to be superfluous, then I've misunderstood the flexible criteria for deciding what to keep and what to exclude from a list of internal and external links.  I will need to re-visit a number of articles where my decision-making about links has been flawed; and I'll need to re-think  how I view this aspect of editing in future.
# The links were part of this article in December 2007 when it was determined to be a "Featured Article"; ergo, these specific links in this particular article has received the imprimatur of whatever broad Wiki-consensus preceded that FA designation.  In my view, this means that the removal of links which are effectively "certified" (in a manner of speaking) requires a more expanded explanation than will fit within the limited confineds of an edit summary.
I'm confident that the third of these arguments has merit, but the more ideosyncratic nature of my initial arguments leaves them always open to question.  For that reason, my interest in why User:Gryffindor removed these links is not merely rhetorical.  I'm interested in the reasoning and evaluation process so that my own decision-making can be better informed when I confront similar situations in future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The places are already included in the template at the very bottom, therefore it is not necessary to double-link them in one article. Gryffindor 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluous links

message: New content on typhoon destruction to the palace has been added by user:205.202.240.119 (talk) but is unsupported by references to any source. This information can not be found in the standard sources used for the article. Further, the name of the supposed typhoon ("grazana") does not appear to conform to Japanese phonology, making the addition somewhat suspicious.
I would ask the anonymous contributor to provide sources for the added information (in addition to fixing the broken language). Otherwise I'm inclined to remove the addition to maintain the article at FA standards. Stca74 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With no sources forthcoming, I've reverted the added text. Stca74 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information on typhoon damage 

message: This is a great article, thank you to all the contributors. The name of the article is however rather misleading. It talks about the general Daidairi 大内裏, which translates as "Great Palace" or "Greater Palace", which is the whole compound. This is also the article name in the Japanese Wiki. In Japanese it is not called "Heian Palace" or "Heian Dairi" (although the name "Heian Shrine" from "Heian Jingu" is the correct translation). Are there any suggestions or comments? Gryffindor (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heian Palace. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313011022/http://tukineko.pekori.jp/heian/daidai/daidai.html to http://tukineko.pekori.jp/heian/daidai/daidai.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The caption on the image showing the map of Heian with the old palace in it says that the location of the "Tsuchimikado temporary palace that developed into the current Kyoto Imperial Palace" is also included in the map. This is not true any more, since the map's image was updated in 2019 to "correct a typo and refine the typography", but the rectangle indicating the Tsuchimikado palace was removed as well.
So either the caption should be updated not to mention the Tsuchimikado palace, or the image itself should be updated to include it again. Probably the second option is preferable, since more relevant information will be available that way.
(I don't do the edition myself because I have no experience in Wikipedia edition nor an account which would allow me to modify the image. Thank you for the work on the article! I learned interesting things from it. Nichope)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.245.48 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map's caption is not accurate any more 

message: This article does not meet current FA standards because it is uncited in many places Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the citation concerns, and low number of sources cited in the article. Are you interested in bringing this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: FA concerns