Talk:Visa requirements for South Korean citizens
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content fromRepublic of Korea passport was copied or moved intoVisa requirements for South Korean citizens withthis edit. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
What is the reasoning of mentioning G8? It seems redundant and doesn't seem notable. It is like saying country x, y, z have visa free to Visegrád Group, or country x,y,z has visa free to Mercosur.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:140:8000:D84F:F031:F80E:9FA7:30B9 (talk)04:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links onVisa requirements for South Korean citizens. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}} tag tohttp://www.fco.gov.uk/content/en/travel-advice/north-central-south-america/12940285/fco_trv_ca_britishantarcticterr?ta=travelSummary&pg=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BushelCandle +Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate tovandalism.Shhhhwwww!! (talk)20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:Northern Moonlight. I noticed that you've added a verification tag requesting citations for basic facts like "visas are administrative entry restrictions" or "visas are issued at diplomatic missions or online." While it's important to ensure content is well-sourced, in these cases, the information falls under what we refer to ascommon knowledge, and tagging it for citations may not be necessary.
This is outlined inWikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and it explains that widely understood facts—those that would not typically be challenged—do not require citations. For example, demanding a citation to prove that visas are administrative tools used to control entry into a country is equivalent to asking for a citation to confirm that the sky is blue. These are well-known and established facts that don’t usually need verification.
The aim of the verifiability policy is to ensure material that might be controversial or unfamiliar is backed up by reliable sources, but it also encourages us to use common sense. Over-tagging articles for citations on basic facts can clutter the text and detract from the readability and quality of the article. In cases like these, it's often more productive to focus on areas of the article that may include novel, disputed, or less commonly known information that truly needs sourcing.
Additionally, I’d like to caution against tag bombing (WP:TAGBOMB), which is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to articles or applying a single tag to multiple pages without sufficient reason. Tag bombing can be a form of disruptive editing and, if continued after being asked to stop, could lead to consequences. While adding tags can sometimes reflect a genuine need for clarification, they shouldn’t be used excessively or to push a particular point of view. Tag bombing can also violate the policy against disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). When editors use excessive tagging to prove a point, such as objecting to a particular policy interpretation or trying to enforce consistency in an unreasonable or extreme way, they disrupt the editing process. This tactic doesn't improve the encyclopedia; instead, it undermines collaborative efforts. For example, applying citation tags to obvious facts (like visas being administrative entry restrictions) could be seen as an attempt to force other editors into an unnecessary dispute or to challenge Wikipedia's citation standards. Disruptive editing to make a point is problematic because it diverts attention from productive editing. If you disagree with how a policy or guideline is being interpreted or enforced, it's important to address the issue constructively—by discussing it on the relevant talk page or through dispute resolution channels—rather than trying to highlight perceived flaws by enforcing rules in an exaggerated or antagonistic manner. Trying to provoke a change in policy by engaging in disruptive behaviors can lead to blocks or bans, as it goes against the principle of consensus and collaborative editing. If you feel that there’s a misunderstanding of policy or a need for change, the best approach is to engage in discussion on the article or policy talk page. Tagging articles excessively or inconsistently to make a point is not constructive and could lead to administrative action against your account. Wikipedia encourages editors to work together to resolve issues, rather than using disruptive tactics to emphasize a point.
I’d encourage you to review the policies in question to better understand when citations are necessary and when they’re not. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further, feel free to reach out!--Twofortnights (talk)15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]