Talk:No kid zone

A fact from No kid zone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the National Library of Korea is a no kid zone?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No kid zone.

Wikipedia

On 1 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to No kid zone (South Korea). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 14:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the National Library of Korea is a no kid zone?

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-02/inside-south-korea-child-free-zones/103139230

Reviewed:

Created by Clovermoss (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Noting that I have since found another source that goes into this in more detail: [1]. Children under sixteen are banned unless they are given special permission to enter the library. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs a QPQ, but beyond that the sourcing looks good. Article is eligible and in good shape. I see no evidence of copyvio. Looks like it all checks out here once a QPQ is done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Generalissima: This is my fourth DYK nomination, I haven't hit five yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that said, it might be best to wait a few days before approval to make sure everything is still good now that there's been some bold content additions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Generalissima: I think everything is sorted out now if you want to take another look. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I missed that you haven't had 5 noms yet! It looks good; I like when DYK can improve articles like that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put this in an edit comment, but since it's relevant to the hook I'll share here too.

The way the hook is presented feels a bit punchy, as if children are being excluded from a friendly public library and not like from a library of similar stature to the US Library of Congress. The National Library of Korea generally has a serious academic reputation, and there are numerous local libraries in Seoul for all ages. I'm a bit skeptical of this library being used as a talking point like this (although this talking point is used in both SK/English-language media), although I do personally agree with the conclusion being drawn. The hook is true and I won't challenge it, but just wanted to share context for it. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've added some content cited to Korean language sources to the article. English sources didn't provide any context about other libraries (and some stated that other libraries were also no kid zones). Obviously the language cited doesn't matter for verifiability, just whether or not the given source is a reliable one. I don't speak Korean so I'm unsure if this source is reliable [2]. I'd appreciate a second opinion here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the weekly edition of Kyunghyang Shinmun, article by this reporter. The reporter seems to be employed by the newspaper; the piece specifically cited is just a casual society piece. It's not a particularly important ref; you can remove if want. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that context. Unless the publication is known for publishing unreliable content, it's probably fine. Could you provide some background on this source too? I just want to make sure there's really strong sourcing for the when statements here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Yonhap News Agency, one of the largest news agencies in South Korea. No particular strong particular leaning that I know of and is considered among the most reliable in Korea. Anything in particular about the article you'd like to know? 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

경기일보 is Kyeonggi Ilbo [ko], a regional newspaper for Gyeonggi Province. No particular strong reputation that I know of; just a local paper. The Chosun Ilbo is a newspaper of record, and only cited for one sentence where it's reporting the results of a survey. The only source that's a little sus is OhmyNews in the image caption; the only reason I added that was because that's where the image comes from and it's a fairly innocuous claim being cited. Please lmk if there's any other concerns. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular comes to mind (I'll let you know if anything comes up), I just wanted to make sure everything was good since I don't speak the language. Thanks for humouring me on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really thanks for being patient with me, sorry for stepping in. I normally would not but the topic sensitivity and potential real life impact of readership is what motivated it. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally of the belief that the more editors the merrier. Thank you for sharing your expertise. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize tag

Per [3]: AirshipJungleman29, if you can honestly link to sources that prove that these are very common outside SK, I might change my mind about the applicability of this tag. But I spent hours looking at what's available online sourcing wise when writing this article and I didn't see anything like that. What I read indicates that this concept to this extent is almost uniquely South Korean. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adults-only hotels have been around for decades Clovermoss. A five-minute Google search shows articles on discrimination and legality in Spain (x2), in Portugal, in Switzerland, in Germany, in the United States, (x2) and on cruise lines. If you want to know how common they are in practice, just type "adult only hotels [destination of choice]" into a search engine. Three short sentences on airlines don't quite cut it in this regard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Okay, noted. I definitely missed that. I've added a "expand section" tag to the elsewhere section. Do you know of any other examples of places prohibiting children (outside of some hotels and airlines)? I really didn't see this when I was searching for sources but the literal phrasing of "no kid zone" is pretty specific to the South Korean concept. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a huge variety, from soft play centres in the UK, to restaurants in the USA and in Germany, and everything in between. If the definition is "places that prohibit children from being on the premises", do nightclubs count? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I don't think nightclubs count because the definition is more "places that prohibit children that otherwise wouldn't". A bar more broadly might count if it doubles as a restaurant.

I'm quite open to literally anything that's relevant here since we don't have another article that's about places that prohibit children. So feel free to list as many examples as you can think of and I'll try to take a look and expand the section in the near future. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Hemiauchenia who appears to have concerns about this article. If you're willing to be more specific about what you'd like to see changed, maybe something could be done about it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with AirshipJungleman29 here. "Establishment that prohibits children" is hardly a South Korea specific concept. We do have an article touching on this topic: Age segregation, but I don't think it's particularly good and its scope is somewhat unclear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: There's plenty of coverage on the South Korean concept. If you Google "no kid zone", you'll see plenty of sources that go into detail specifically about this and rarely does anyone even compare it to other countries that prohibit children (even in international, English sources which is what I've been using because I don't understand Korean). The closest you get to that direct comparison is the Washington Post source. It might be best to get rid of the "elsewhere" and limit the scope of this article to South Korea. More globally focused content might be better suited at age segregation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if this article is about the idea of age exclusion as it specifically refers to South Korea, why does the opening sentence say No kid zones are places, particularly' in South Korea, that prohibit children from being on the premises I would suggest just removing any references to places outside South Korea, and make the article exclusively about South Korean "No Kid Zones". Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I added the elsewhere content because people were concerned it wasn't enough to just talk about South Korea when other places limit children (like above). It's possible to prohibit children without it being in South Korea but this concept is different in its implementation and breadth. I encourage you to read the sources and tell me what I should be doing differently. I'm willing to get rid of the "elsewhere" content but I really only added/expanded it in the first place because other people wanted me to. It seems unfair to criticize me for either doing nothing or for actually listening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: would you be okay if the "elsewhere" section was removed entirely and any relevant information was copied over to age segregation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in multiple minds about the best way to fix this article, but I agree with AJM that the current article structure is inadequate.

My preferred solutions are:

1. Rework into an article about no kids zones generally worldwid with South Korea demoted to a specific subsection rather than being the primary topic.

2. Make the article entirely about No Kids Zones in South Korea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: It's difficult to do #1 because there isn't the same type of coverage about prohibiting children in certain areas like there is for South Korea. Sources are quite scattered in that respect and tend to be highly localized (e.g. this specific airplane flight offers kid free zones). The primary topic would definitely be South Korea and no matter how hard I try, I doubt I'd be able to give a decent overview based on a country level. Have you read the sources and tried to find some yourself? I genuinely believe it'd be easier to see where I'm coming from if you have.

I don't want to quote your offwiki comment because I'm under the impression that's not allowed. However, I was wondering if you could elaborate on your concerns about poor writing? Did you just mean article structure or do you have other concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't necessarily criticising your prose writing per se, but I do think the South Korea section is somewhat unclearly organized. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, has this been brought up on WPO's nitpicking thread? I think #2, with an article rename and other content copied elsewhere, is a good solution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I don't think the article should be rennamed because the sources used for the South Korean concept exclusively refer to it as a "no kid zone".

@Hemiauchenia: if I get rid of the elsewhere and divide South Korea into sections like practice, reception, and legislation, would that satisfy your concerns about disorganization? Or do you have a better idea? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So rename it "No kid zone (South Korea)" or "No kid zones in South Korea". Or I suppose you could add a relevant hatnote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Disambiguation would only really work if there was some other topic. There are no true analogues to the no kid zones and South Korea is obviously the WP:PRIMARY topic. From my experience in reviewing page move redirects and reading move discussions, concise language is generally preferred. The only option I can see working out with current norms is a hatnote. I'll try to figure out the best way to implement this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree to change the article title to mention South Korea specifically, as the phrase "no kid zone" or similar is used in English for places outside of Korea (e.g. [4] [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I'll start a formal move request since there's clearly some disagreement here. I personally think "no kid zone" is clearly the primary topic since sources only use that to refer to the South Korean concept and using "no kid zone" to refer to the concept of restricting children elsewhere is dramatically less common. We'll see what others think, I suppose.

Anyways, I've moved the content about other places to age segregation, divided the content about South Korea into sections, and added a hatnote. Do you feel like your concerns have been adequately addressed? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against the move. (non-admin closure) Melmann 14:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No kid zone → No kid zone (South Korea) – Given the discussion above, at least two editors think that the article title is ambiguous enough to deserve disambiguation. I think that South Korea is clearly the primary topic (Google no kid zones and see the results) and that the hatnote that has now been placed in the article is sufficient. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, googling it shows that the term "no kid zone" is specific to South Korea, while elsewhere such zones may be called differently, such as child-free zone or only adult zone in some airlines. Perhaps a relevant wp:hatnote could be added or some common name found under which all such zones could be described globally. Brandmeister^talk 14:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's fine as it is since no kid zones are primarily a Korean thing. Idk how to explain it but it's like when UK has its own article for rest area known as a motorway service area. Ik that's a completely different topic but its the only one I can think of. JuniperChill (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, think hat note is sufficient. seefooddiet (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unnecessary disambiguation. There's a loss to clarity and search-ability if we append (South Korea) or some-such. Also per the google results shown above that the title is relatively unique to SK. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the disambiguation is not needed, and per Brandmeister, unless the term is majorly adopted elsewhere, which similar zones by airlines don't exactly, and enough for another article to be made. For now. as the sole article, the disambiguation is not needed. Dank Jae 17:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think a disambiguation page would just complicate things. Waqar💬 18:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.