Talk:First Battle of Seoul

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Korean / Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated working groups: /  This article is supported by the Korean military history task force. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. inactive .Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

@117.19.148.137: Hi - Whats the rationale for your deletion of the 'see also' section?

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated the edits made by some users regarding my expansion of the Stub. It allowed me to grasp a firmer understanding of the Wikipedia writing criteria. I have revised and researched more in-depth on the topic and, subsequently, added more sections. I believe the sections are more relevant and stay relevant to the topic. I am open to any feedback, and edits, as the aim is to make the stub as notable as possible. Thanks. SydneyStudent619 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pokpoong which describes the overall North Korean invasion plan. This page should stay focussed on the actual battle for Seoul. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Operation Pokpoong which describes the overall North Korean invasion and so is the most appropriate place for details of the planning and controversey over the origins of the battle. If you have detail to add about the actual fighting for Seoul you can add it here, but otherwise information about the overall invasion should go onto Operation Pokpoong. You need to provide page numbers for each book that you use as references and accessdates for each website that you use. You also need to link as much as possible for example most of the cities and military units have their own pages which can be linked, but only link once on a page. I note that you refer to a number of South Korean towns and areas that I have never heard of such as Kaizin, Sinyuri, Korio, Urutsyn, Tongducheb, Bunsan, Siunseen and Tubuiri, please check the spellings and link as necessary. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Mztourist Thanks for your feedback and input. SydneyStudent619 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "North Korean victory" (or even "DPRK victory") would be a more suitable term than "Communist Victory" as:
1. North Korea was the only country invading, not a group of Communist-aligned nations that could potentially go under the umbrella of a "Communist victory"
2. it would be in-line with the Second and Third Battle of Seoul's articles, which say "United Nations victory" and "Chinese/DPRK victory" respectively Zolax9 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]