Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 4

Eradication of variety show sections

The topic of completely removing variety show appearances from K-pop groups/idols/artists has been discussed a lot recently and I think it is about time we had a proper conclusion or consensus on the matter. It is extremely common for South Korean artists to appear and promote on variety shows such as Weekly Idol, After School Club, Happy Together, Hello Counselor, Running Man etc. On some articles (for example Cosmic Girls and Gugudan who are relatively new groups) this content alone takes up a large portion of the article itself. Is a one-off guest appearance on a TV show really notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic article?

Here are some links to previous discussions which I find to be notable:

• Talk:Seventeen (band)#Adding variety show to filmography
• Talk:Im_Yoon-ah#Variety show appearances
• Talk:Red Velvet (band)#Filmography section
• Talk:2PM#videography/filmography
• Talk:Twice (band)#Reality/Variety shows
• Talk:Ladies' Code#Additional TV Apperances
• Talk:Pristin#Removal of Variety Shows
• Talk:NU'EST#Requesting removal of variety shows

Applying this same logic to western artists for better understanding: you do not see artists like One Direction, Fifth Harmony, Ariana Grande, Rihanna etc. having long lists of minor appearances listed on their articles. Abdotorg (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Abdotorg: I've written a longer, more detailed argument further down this page, but I just wanted to point out that several western artists, including Rihanna have guest appearances listed on a separate videography page, which is what I'm suggesting in my longer argument on this page that be done with Korean artists as well. Autokiij (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There are several types of variety shows additions in Kpop articles here on Wikipedia:
Groups:

1a: Articles like Pristin, where a single member made a guest appearance on a variety show, yet it is listed on group's article.

2a: Full-group guest appearance on a variety show, listed in group's article.

Individuals:

1b: An artist is a member of a group – the group makes a guest appearance on a show, but it is listed on individual member(s) article(s).

2b: An artist make a solo guest appearance on a show, it is listed on it's article.

In my opinion, all those appearance mentioned above needs to be deleted as those guesting apps adds nothing to their careers, its a fancruft thing.

What should be listed in "Filmography" section per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, is:

• Lead role/supporting role/cameo (only if credited) in a drama (is "web drama" notable?), movie, sitcom, TV series (not a variety show).
• Regular, fixed MC/host on any variety show.
• Regular cast on a variety show (needs to be an indefinite period, not appearing on 3-4 episodes in a row as a pre-planned guests, because that is still a guesting)

The only problem I see is with "contestant" role; one of the many examples is King of Mask Singer – Does this counts as a guesting, or is being "contestant" in a variety show notable enough for mention? Snowflake91 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen it referred to as fancruft frequently and I agree that removal of such appearances is probably the best idea. I, myself feel web-dramas are notable as they are still series' after all, much like series on Netflix/Hulu/Amazon. With KoMS I am unsure whether to class it as a competition or a variety show, usually participants only appear on a couple of episodes, so it is most likely not notable enough for filmog.

To counter the backlash that is constantly seen when removal of variety shows is issued, we could consider creating participant categories (eg. [Category:Weekly Idol participants], [After School Club participants], [Category:Happy Together participants], [Category:Hello Counselor participants] etc.) similar to [Category:King of Mask Singer contestants] and [Category:Running Man (TV series) contestants]. Abdotorg (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just posting to say I agree to removal of such sections, as others have stated. It is pure fluff and isn't necessary. Categories are perfectly reasonable as Abdotorg stated. Evaders99 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, but not for shows like King of Mask Singer where artists participate in what is technically still a competition. As for the minor appearances on these variety shows, we could just expand the shows' pages. Lonedirewolf 02:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I do agree with the suggested removal, but in condition with what the others above me have suggested as well. Having categories as Abdotorg suggested or expanding the show's pages as Lonedirewolf mentioned are a reasonable alternative. Suugaapio (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll go more with Abdotorg's proposal, but at the same time, I think Lonedirewolf's own is also good. RafaelPPascual (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing guest appearances, keeping contestant roles and cameos in movies and dramas, and creating categories like Abdotorg suggested. --Chiya⁹² 08:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Same opinion as Chiyako92 right above me. --ChoHyeri (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think creating categories as Abdotorg suggested is a good idea. --IrieArthur (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Abdotorg's suggestion. Creating categories would be a better option. - CJojoC 16:41, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Add me to the list in agreement with Abdotorg's proposal. Unless they have a major role in the show throughout the season, there is no reason to include guest appearances just to fill up space.Ersity8 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chiyako92. In addition, if a member has an individual notable work but still doesn't have his/her own article, it can be added on the 'Members' section in a sentence form. See Twice_(band)#Members as example. Accireioj (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What about being an MC on one episode, should this be included or is this guesting as well ? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Abdotorg, create the participant categories and add for artist who have a guest appearance (for only one episode, or few episodes but non consecutive) on a show. I also agree with Lonedirewolf, do not remove their appearance on a music-variety show like KoMS or other similar program such as Immortal Song, ICSYV ... and other appearances as a cast member such as on LotJ ...

You say KoMS is a variety program, not wrong, but in parallel it is also a singing program where the participants (not the panel) should mainly express their vocal skills, not principally their entertaining skills. For someone who are wondering what will participation in the variety show bring to their career, look at Hwang Chi-yeul, from an anonymous artist and a vocal trainer for idol (such as Infinite) what has he achieved after appearing on ICSYV (also a music-variety show) as a normal participant. Do not despise South Korean varierty programs, they will shine if they have real talent or at least have a place in the entertainment industry later, and vice versa, because no one is sure they will forever be idol in a group or singer, they can start another role after being guest in few variety shows (such as Leeteuk, he is quite successful with his other roles in the entertainment programs next to his singing career as a Super Junior member, such as host for ICSYV). For idols, music is important when they are in a group but it's not everything, survival or not in the entertainment industry is also their career. Kenny htv (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of this and would be happy to make the articles I watch comply. But I just want to add that for cameos, if they should be notable, they must have proper citation to prove notability from at least two news sources. I had someone continually trying to add a cameo role on a page where the person appeared for maybe 5 seconds in the show. Also if we keep music variety show guest appearances we should also keep dance ones like Hit the stage. Lastly, I do not feel guest MCing on a music show is notable in most cases. What does the one appearance add to the artist career? not much. Peachywink (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, variety show appearances should be removed as stated. MCing roles on music shows should also be excluded, as it is thrown on pretty much everyone at some point. Roles in web dramas should be allowed. Categories should not be the alternate outlet, as you will just be moving the problem from article content to category content. Additionally, there is a long-standing precedent against these categories: User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Reality TV participants. ℯxplicit 00:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it should be removed from filmography and also as independent sections. Notable appearances on variety shows (like Running Man guesting) can be mentioned in one line in the text of the article. However, long-lasting mC roles on music shows should be kept. MCs don't change that frequently. Usually one MC-ing role lasts for at least one whole season or even longer. That should count as part of one's significant filmography, especially if there are sources to back it up. @Kenny htv: there will always be exceptions and if a variety show appearance boosted someone's career in a significant manner, that should be part of the written text, with sources backing up the claim that it was his appearance on a variety show that made him famous. Thsis, however, should not be reasoning to keep variety appearances in the filmography section of every little idol out there. You know how Gal Gadot's article would look like if all her tv show apearances were listed after a fil promotion? It would look ridiculous. Variety show appearances are like interviews and other media appearances. If an appearance is significant for whatever reason, it should be in the article body, not in filmography. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 10:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You can use WP:OVERCAT#Performers by series or performance venue for variety show appearances, to remove a bunch of categories for variety shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please if you are looking to format all kpop artists pages please consider the people putting efforts to keep the fan base updated with all the information. Respect individual pages. Whether its notable guest appearances or not some wants to know. Please understand that some fanaccounts are putting time and effect on this. If you want to make a page on your own feel free to do so but please dont bother individual profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosslands (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of WP:Fancruft and WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not a database of variety shows to "keep the fan base updated with all the information", you can use some forums or fanpages dedicated to the group for finding a list of every single minor interview on a TV show. Did you even see how long the page at Heo Young-ji was? There were literally over 100 entries in variety & radio shows section, 80+ alone in the variety shows section, 35+ in the 2016 alone, yet she is only 22...how will the article look like in 2-3 years, will there be 300 guest appearances, so you will need to scroll down for hours to reach the bottom? Snowflake91 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

i dont know who gave you the authority to decide or declare whether a page is too clumped or ot. or cared that a page is getting too long. but i do hope you understand how some dont even have updated fanpages like what youre claiming and some just have this to be working on. im not sure why youre feeling the need to clear these pages when its someone elses hard work that your deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosslands (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mosslands: "who gave you the authority" -- Wikipedia's rules give us the authority. You know, this place has some rules that everyone need to follow. You and other fans included. Wikipedia is not a fan page. It's an encyclopedia. maybe before you make accusations, you should read the guidelines and the rules. It doesn't matter how muych work you put into compiling something if it is against the rules. This is a community here, with established rules, and not a free blog where you can write whatever. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is primarily meant for someone who dont know her and want to find some information, and not for her fans to keep up with every single of her 100+ guesting appearances. Firstly, someone who doesnt know her would not care about those guest interviews at all, and secondly, it would distract the reader from actually keep on reading since 70% of the article were huge tables with TV apperances, without any sources. Instead of adding those non-notable shows, why not adding her role and a newer source in a "Film" section instead? It has been "TBA" since early 2016, this is much more important than guesting on tv talk shows. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

for some reason i'm agree with Abdotorg and Lonedirewolf suggests. Not all but some information must include in their page, artists as Participants i think it can allows but for guest or small appareance not include i think no problem. for radio shows i'm not agree it can include.Fenny novita (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have always been a long-term advocate to remove those guest appearances out of K-pop artists' articles (you can see my arguments in the Seventeen and Im Yoon-ah's talk pages mentioned at the top). Long-term guest or long-term MC roles can remain. But I find it more important for notable appearances to be mentioned within the written text, because if this is truly notable, it would give context to someone's career. For example, someone becomes famous after they participate in some TV singing contest. Everything else need not to be included. Regarding the idea of expanding the "Categories" section, I still consider it as fluff information and don't see it as a good idea. I mean, for example, Running Man might be a popular variety show and can be notable in itself, but what's useful about having a [Category: Running Man participants]? The point is, do any of these appearances add any notable milestone in a particular artist's career? If not, there is no need for it to be mentioned at all.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Another thought is most of the variety shows, whether being guested or main cast by a particular artist, are primarily used as a promotional tool to promote them. For example, Jessica & Krystal basically follows the two Jung sisters around for a short period of time and honestly doesn't give any important info about their career. Running Man does provide some nonsense entertainment to the viewers, but the artists participating in it does not achieve any life-changing career development out of it. I consider this the same as some nonsense interviews/documentary. Because of such shows, I began to think that having the entire "Variety Show" section, whether main cast or guest, removed from Wikipedia would not be a bad idea. But there are factors and exceptions to be considered for each case (Regular cast/MC/radio host on a variety show), so I won't put too much arguments into this. --TerryAlex (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get some of the reasoning here, and want to present some arguments, and a suggestion.

I'm going to start by using Sunny's page as an example, because that's where I was made aware of this discussion. Contestant roles, like Sunny's contestant appearance on 1 vs 100 is basically the same as a guest appearance, and is is no way more notable than her guesting several times on Infinite Challenge, and Running Man back when it was a big show. Even though Sunny was a regular member of Cheonhajangsa, that show had a viewership rating of 1.0% or less, and would've done less for her career than her multi-episode guest appearance on Infinite Challenge in 2013, which average a rating over 15.3%. Also curious about how a cameo for a drama, which are often short and nowhere near a full episode is deemed to be more worthy of inclusion that a variety show guest appearance that lasted for a full episode. And how does a web drama with a couple of thousand viewers do more for a career than a weekend variety show?

For instance, Mamamoo's short appearance on Entourage (South Korean TV series) (averaging just over 1%) is somehow deemed more important than their numerous full-episode appearances on shows more popular and more viewed than Entourage, or their appearances Immortal Songs: Singing the Legend where the appearance is also released a single afterwards.

Since most of you who are discussing this are mainly editing k-pop pages, how about inviting some more wikipedians that deal with variety content, to at least allow for some counter-arguments rather than just steamrolling this? From the reverted edits, and removal of variety appearances I've seen so far, like you can see in the history tab for Mamamoo's page, the removal of content has been done without referring to this discussion, and that is just discouraging for anyone who wants to contribute to wikipedia.

How about opening up separate filmography pages, like Kim Hee-chul filmography. You can even keep guest appearances in a collapsible table like that wiki page has done. Similar to discography pages, and separate pages for award nominations & wins, it saves a lot of space in the main articles, and rather than just removing knowledge that is often hard to look up elsewhere. Could just set a threshold for number of appearances needed before having a filmography page and group member's individual variety appearances listed in the group's filmography page until a separate page is needed.

And just in case anyone is about to argue that an artist's filmography page is not noteworthy enough for a separate page, then look at the large number of individual pages for single and album releases by k-pop groups, and look at sales numbers for music projects in variety shows. The first season of Sister's Slam Dunk, which was not dedicated to a girl group project like the second season was, released a single that is listed in 81st in the gaon download charts for 2016, out-ranking and out-selling several big idol groups. Another example is Infinite Challenge, a long-running variety show that occasionally does music projects. One of their music festivals is listed #9, #22, #37, #48 & #56 in the 2015 gaon download charts.

While it's true that many groups use guest appearances as a part of their promotional cycle, there's a reason for that. It impact their sales, and it's a way for groups to gain popularity, and considering just under 40 variety shows are currently subtitled and licensed outside of South Korea for foreign audiences, on official platform such as VIU, OnDemandKorea, DramaFever and Netflix among others, I'd argue that the popularity of variety shows is enough in itself to warrant inclusion.

My suggestion, as mentioned, is to migrate guest appearances and other variety, drama and other video media appearances to a separate pages, rather than deleting the information. It solves the problem of guest appearances taking up too much space in the main article, it retains the information, because currently I think the selective removal is very questionable in regards to what is, and what is not, noteworthy information.

Also, for Abdotorg's argument about western artists such as Rihanna not having guest appearances listed, I want to point out that several western artists, including Rihanna actually have guest appearances listed on her videography page. This list also includes entertainment shows like Punk'd, which would be the same as a Korean artist's filmography/videography page including a guest appearance on Secretly Greatly. Autokiij (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that removal is selective, I already stated in the first reply that being a "contestant" is not notable though. Like King of Mask Singer – this is a music-based variety show and not the real competition. The real competitions are shows like The X Factor (U.S. TV series) or Britain's Got Talent, where anyone can compete and there are also prizes in terms of money etc., while those Korean "competitions" like King of Mask Singer and many others are actually nothing more than variety shows for celebrities, so being a contestant in 1-2 episodes is not more notable than being a guest on a talk show. Shows like Produce 101 can be counted as a competition since they are part of the show for the whole season, not just 1-2 episodes. Another similar example is Idol Star Championships – this is a variety show as well, it cannot be counted as a "competition", it is not recognited by any sports institution. How to solve the problem ? I dont know, probably what TerryAlex said, simply delete EVERYTHING and leave only roles (lead, minor, cameos) in the films, dramas, and television series (and maybe web dramas, although they are less notable than regular dramas). Maybe leave MC roles as well, but only if being host for the whole season in a notable show (needs a Wiki article), and not just temporary/guest host for 4-5 episodes. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about a contestant role being the same as a guest appearance, but I don't understand why there are different rules for dramas and variety shows. cameos are often a lot shorter than a variety show guest appearance. Some of the cameos are even idols just appearing as themselves in the drama. As for you question about how to solve the problem and suggesting to delete everything, I dedicated a big part of my previous post on this page to explain why I think deleting everything is not a good course of action considering there are better alternatives at hand. Autokiij (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may stick my nose in on a conversation in which it doesn't belong? I won't touch on cameos (personally I think cameos in 1-2 episodes aren't imperative enough to warrant notation), but I think the idea is that even though a group may attend a variety show that has a really high viewer percentage (say, 15%), that doesn't necessarily mean it's an important part of the idol/group's role as artists, or of encyclopedic value. After all, yes Weekly Idol is seen by a lot of people and may to some degree spread somebody's popularity, but at the same time a group might go to Weekly Idol more than ten times over their career, lowering its value to their careers. Knowing that this is likely, and knowing that what occurs in Weekly Idol does not focus on an artists talents as much as their entertainment value, do you consider it of equal value to other encyclopedic material? Moreover, aren't you more likely to already assume idols have already been to such shows, and do you really need a visual representation of that right here? Wikipedia's end game is to be an encyclopedia, not a resume for idols and artists, nor a complete history of every move they make and every step they take. I realize Wikipedia is the 'first line' you find when you go to research information on an idol or group, and that it's interesting for fans to see this information somewhere, but these pages don't exist purely for the fans: it also exists for people trying to find coherent, important information regardless of whether they are fans or no. If somebody with no prior knowledge or experience was looking at a K-Pop artist's page, how would they be able to understand the triviality of a guest appearance on Immortal Song when it's listed next to a long-term MC position or a lead role in a movie? It's the triviality of guest appearances that is so controversial - yes, it provides us fans with a coherent overview of where artists have been, but in real terms outside of the fandom if you will, these appearances are meaningless. You can create a filmography sure, but if the majority of the information there bears no influence outside of a fandom context then it's not considered of encyclopedic value. So whether the information is on a main page or a separate page makes little difference to the end result: the information is considered insignificant, and therefore should not be added to Wikipedia domains. I'm in agreement with TerryAlex - full deletion of inconsequential information is probably best for the coherency of articles. PeppermintGlow (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeppermintGlow: The thing is that even if some variety show guest appearances maybe be inconsequential to an artist's career, there are a lot of them are not. The only reason Sechs Kies is active as a group at the moment is because of their guest appearance on Infinite Challenge, and as mentioned in my previous comment, there were several artists that were listed on the yearly digital charts through appearing on the same show. It clearly has an impact on their careers. I'd argue that appearances on all the highly rated shows can potentially have a big impact on an artist's career. There's a completely different impact from what Weekly Idol will have. Weekly Idol is a much smaller show that scores about the same as the aforementioned Cheonhajangsa in TV ratings, and caters directly to fandoms. Unlike a lot of other shows, Weekly Idol is not licensed or legally distributed with english subtitles to international audiences either. The big shows brings groups to the attention of a much bigger audience. It has happened several times that artists that appear, or whose songs are mentioned on bigger shows gets a solid boost on the charts. Like Turbo & S.E.S., or like Zion.T & Hyukoh who both topped the charts with old songs after appearing on the show. Given the amount of space that is spent on chart positions, those appearances are surely not inconsequential? While some appearances may be inconsequential to an artist's career, I feel like removing all variety show appearances will also remove a lot of information that does in fact have an impact on an artist's career.

Also, similar to idols that turns to acting, there are a lot of idols that end up making a career for themselves in TV entertainment, like Kim Hee-chul or Eun Ji-won that are both established in TV entertainment, or like DinDin who has stated he wants to join a weekly variety show, and is currently making the rounds as a guest to make that happen. When an idol makes a career for themselves in TV, they're also entertainers, and their entertainment history will have more importance for their career than a random guest appearance would for a full-time music idol. A guest appearance on a small show would the have about as much impact as an uncharted single would for an idol, and a guest appearance on bigger shows would be like a charted single so to speak.

Let me also reiterate that all removal of variety show appearances should be clearly marked with an edit summary linking to this page, so people can have a say in the matter, and so wikipedians that are not discouraged by unexplained reversions of their edits, as have been the case on several pages so far.Autokiij (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Variety shows that impact idol careers to that extent are in the minority, but sure - if a single appearance has made that much of an impact, then it should be noted in a line of the main text, but when you put such an appearance in say a table and divide it from its context it loses meaning. I have no problem with genuinely important notes being made in an artist's history section where the importance of it can be explained, but without context it provides nothing worthy of notice. The other problem is that once you accept certain variety show appearances, you're setting yourself wide open for others - every moment on camera will be recorded on Wikipedia. Wikipedians will add notable appearances on Running Man, and also every single time any Tom, Dick or Harry from a group has been to ISAC, After School Club - and also variety shows that have only had one or two episodes, like The Boss is Watching, will now be fair game. And since the distinction between how influential a single appearance has been can be subjectively argued over and over, you're opening the floodgates for useless debate and countless editing reversion wars.

As for TV-Entertainers, again, standard positions in variety shows should be kept absolutely, but even for an entertainer, a single show or episode isn't that notable unless it significantly boosts their career as you were saying with Sechs Kies. But again - if it was a once-off kind of thing, it should really be included in the main text of an article, and not divided from its context.

I do also agree that VS removals should be linked back here though, since this is after all the hub of the debate. PeppermintGlow (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeppermintGlow: For a TV entertainer, guest appearances are notable. I get why a job in a reaction panel is questionable, but regular guest appearance will in most cases be spread out over 60-80 minutes of screen-time. It's also a part of their body of work, similar to a supporting role for an actor, or a single for an artist or a group, both of the latter are usually included in wikipedia articles. A lot of k-pop artist's wikipedia pages includes a long list of 'other charted songs', some of which have barely charted at all. They are unlikely to have affected their overall career much, yet it is included. As they should be. The article for Seventeen is a good example of how I am suggesting it should be solved for entertainers. If you look at their discography on the main article for the band, only the most important stuff is included. The rest of the discography is added to a separate discography page, where even songs that peaked at 188th place, or songs that didn't chart at all is included. A lot of k-pop artists even have their own wikipedia pages just for a list of awards they either received or where nominated for, a list of endorsements or commercials. There is a lot of information included on these pages that should also be questioned if variety show appearances are questioned. Especially in the case of idols that are also TV entertainers. Space isn't really the issue here either. For artists or entertainers that have yet to do enough variety show work to warrant a separate filmography page, the guest appearances can be grouped together and added to the bottom of the variety show table in a collapsible table set to be closed at page load. That way you stop this mass deletion of information, and does not hinder the reading of wikipedia articles in any way.

Kim Hee-chul is one of the few idols-turned-entertainers I'm aware of that already have his own filmography page. If you look at the page view statistics for that wikipedia article, it has between 7,800 and 9,200 pageviews every month. In comparison the month with the most views over the past year for the Super Junior discography page (Hee-chul's group) is 4,616 pageviews. In other words, almost half. That is just one example. There are other groups like Sistar that have fewer pageviews most months, with some spikes, and other groups that have more pageviews every week, just like there are a lot groups or artists that have less. The interest in who guests on variety shows can also been seen on articles that list variety show episodes. The relatively new List of Knowing Bros episodes had over 216,000 pageviews last month, which is probably a spike, but even its first month had more pageviews than most months for Sistar & Super Junior's discography pages. The much older List of Infinite Challenge episodes ranged between 50,000 - 103,000 pageviews over the past year. Autokiij (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In cultural terms, there is an enormous difference in significance placed on appearing on a variety show in Korea and places like the US or Europe. I would like to know how aware the people proposing the deletion are of this cultural difference, and the notion of “entertainer” in Korea, when deciding on its relevance. Also, for example, IMDb lists even a 5 minute appearances on shows like Extra, Good Morning America and Late Sow(s) under the category “Self”. I don’t see any benefit of such deletion, especially when done in a consistent and systematical way (table at the end of the article). Wrz100 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of the encyclopedic value of articles, in my opinion, should also include the users of discussed pages. Though I could in no terms be described as a “fan”, I find the information on all TV appearances, including their type and frequency, valuable.Wrz100 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, just wanted to point out that this policy should not be blindly applied to all groups, especially the less popular groups who barely get opportunities to promote on variety shows (like DAY6). Removing the group's filmography records just make it more difficult for new fans to check out the group's content. I think that such deletions are unhelpful and may even be detrimental. I am of the opinion that groups like DAY6 is the exception, and if in the future they become more popular and goes on numerous variety shows, this situation be can relooked at. Hi Abdotorg I left a message discussing this on your talk page, but perhaps this is the more appropriate forum to point this out instead. Thanks! Highkick3 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of popularity - Wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement or promotion WP:NOTADVERTISING. It's whether listing such appearances are necessary on Wikipedia at all. Does this information give the average reader an overall picture of the notability of the group? Or are these instances just important to the fans - WP:FANCRUFT? I believe this are much more "indiscriminate collections of information" that is not necessary for Wikipedia. This isn't IMDB and other fan wikis; there is no need to create a resume for every single artist appearance. Evaders99 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize the majority of points made by those supporting the removal:

• Any guest appearance, by a group or individual, on a variety show adds little relevance to the artist's careers. In such cases where a single guest appearance has more relevance such as it breaks into a scandal or significantly boosts an artist's popularity, this should be mentioned in the main text of the article, but as an appearance on a show in and of itself it is not notable, and should be removed.

This with the exception of long-term MC roles or judge panel roles, which should be mentioned on the relevant member's own page in the filmography, or in the main body of text of the main article under the Members section.

• Competitions should be afforded due respect: however competitions such as Idol Championships or King of Masked Singer only ever grant a prize of public affinity, making their goals as a variety show their main goals, and therefore they should be removed. This also includes 'music-based' variety shows, as their core goal is essentially promotion.
• Shows which are competitions or variety shows that only ever have one episode, such as anniversary programs or items like The Boss is Watching add no notability to artists or their careers, and therefore should be removed.
• Many variety shows are used as promotional tools, not unlike a performance on a music show, a local photo shoot or a CF. To say these activities are on par with releasing an album that makes money or a world tour is a stretch. As these do not add notability to an artist's career, they should be removed.
• Appearances may be moved to their own category, but a vote can be made that this is simply moving material from one place where it should not be, to another place where it should not be, as such material is most likely considered not notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed entirely.
• As for any fan-based queries to things such as relevance to fandom or popularity - Wikipedia is first and foremost an objective encyclopedia with its own rules and regulations. Even though the K-Pop section is most likely to be edited by a majority of K-Pop fans, that doesn't turn WP:FANCRUFT into relevant data. Information is valued when it brings significance or clarifying detail to an artist's career or the timeline of that career. Otherwise, while it may be interesting to read, Wikipedia isn't the place to put such information. You can see WP:RELNOT for more on that.

In short, the vast majority of variety show appearances often added to articles are not considered notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, and therefore should be removed. PeppermintGlow (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU! That is great explanation! Evaders99 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm late to the discussion, but it makes sense. These are simply individual TV appearances, which we note for no other kind of subject in Wikipedia, unless maybe it's wrestling, which is likewise plagued by the idea that everything that the internet links is noteworthy. These articles aren't resumes, and these shows aren't the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Guest and one-off appearances are repeatedly being re-added to Hong Soo-ah, I think I've removed it too many times to continue doing so, if someone could suggest what to do or how to resolve this I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't get why people are so bent out of shape over this topic (I'm talking about the desire to delete everything). Appearances on these shows in East Asia aren't like being on Conan or Kimmel in the U.S. where nobody cares about it and most people don't even watch those appearances. On Conan/Kimmel they are just on the shows to fulfill their promo duties for a new movie or album and are only on the show for about 5 to 10 minutes at the end of the show. In these Korean shows they're promoting only themselves and under a huge amount of stress. If they fail to be funny or 'cute' or interesting in these shows they will lose out on movie/drama roles for the future or their boy/girl group will be disbanded. It's a big deal in East Asia, especially for the non-A-list actors/singers (I think A-listers like Sunny/IU should have something like their own separate article detailing their guest appearances and filmography if people want that. It shows how popular they are, which is more important in East Asia than the West due to culture. And it is a huge reason why Sunny/IU have so many commercials/drama/movie/etc. gigs). Shows like 'Hello Counselor' and 'Law of the Jungle' with only 3 or 4 guests for the whole one or two episode arc aren't typical variety shows like 'Strong Heart' or 'Celebrity Golden Bell' where you have like 20 guests in one episode and each guest talks for a grand total of 2 minutes.

Hi. In the beginning of this discussion it is clearly mentioned that the variety show appearances should be removed from K-pop groups/idols/artists. So what about the actors and actresses? Doesn't this apply to them? I guess not as almost every actor and actress has variety shows section in their filmography. So I think this shouldn't be applicable to the person who was once an idol, quit being an idol and was cast in the variety shows after becoming an actor/actress. So kindly stop removing the once-an-idol-turned-actor variety shows section. I also wonder why some people are thinking that MV appearances are insignificant and the section should be removed. As far as I understood the whole point of removing the variety shows is because they doesn't help the artist's career. But featuring in MVs does help boosting their career. Why can't people understand that it is the most significant thing in an artists career and it should be proudly mentioned? People come to Wikipedia to know about the unknown. So shouldn't people who doesn't know have the right to know about the person who they want to know better? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you get everything from it. In most of the cases the search starts and ends here. In my opinion as Korean culture is getting international recognition it is not a wise thing to remove the MV appearances. Jolcs (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I can't speak to actor's pages, because I don't actually know any actors. I don't think I could name 5 actors, actually. But as for MV appearances: very few people ever shoot to fame solely on their appearance in somebody else's MV. Due to an appearance they may be offered other opportunities, let's say, a drama, and become popular through the drama. But then the drama has made them popular, not the MV appearance. Even though the appearance was what triggered some PD's decision to cast an actor/actress, it only makes the appearance relevant by proxy. And relevance by proxy isn't enough to sustain true relevance. Besides that, it makes no sense to list a music video under somebody who isn't the recording artist. A motion could made to list those who appeared in the video under the recording artist's page, but again, something about their appearance would have to be actually important in and of itself, in order to be mentioned. PeppermintGlow (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is artists who no longer are idols but became complete actors/actresses should be excluded from this list which is all about present idols. So those who are trying to remove their shows sections kindly refrain from doing so as once an idol is not forever an idol and still if they do so it doesn't make sense as the other actors and actresses doesn't have their sections removed. Coming to MVs so for example Taylor Swift featured Ed Sheeran or Alicia Keys featured Nicki Minaj in their respective MVs it shouldn't be mentioned in both Ed Sheeran's and Nicki Minaj's as those MVs are just proxies? Does it make sense? As far as I've seen no artist features other people without any reason. Their appearance will hold significance. Let's discuss about Kpop. Psy featured Taeyang and IU featured G-Dragon. So now tell me in which pages it should be mentioned and in which it shouldn't be. The answer which is obvious and is already out there all the four pages have the respective MVs mentioned. Talking about the artists who are not as popular as the above shouldn't their pages deserve the MVs to be mentioned? If the featuring in the MVs doesn't land them a role then the MV doesn't deserve a mention? What kind of illogical argument is that? So Wikipedia sections are based on popularity? If the artist and the featured artist are popular add it if not just remove that's it? Is it any different from rich getting richer and poor getting poorer? I don't know that Wikipedia works in that way atleast it is not mentioned like that in the rules and regulations. As far as I know and understood Wikipedia isn't something to showcase or measure the popularity it is there to give the complete information of the artist and their works. I just want each and every artist deserving the same respect regardless of their popularity. Is that an unnecessary thing to do?Encyclopedia is something of everything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as we all know. Let the wiki pages be presented in that way mentioning something of everything. So even if people want to know the little details which are not so little like MVs about an artist they should search for the artist and if the artist is not so popular they'll be directed to Korean pages and as we all know the translation does a wonderful job they should learn Hangul to just know about the MVs?Great they'll be satisfied and be thankful for the hassle. Anyway most of the people now-a-days open wiki using their phones. So there is also an option of expansion of the desired sections which will solve the 'lengthy' problems the people above are talking about. Jolcs (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, there seems to be some miscommunication here. What I said has nothing to do with 'popularity' at all. It's about relevance. When IU featured G-Dragon, that was mentioned on both pages, because G-Dragon was also an artist for the song itself. It wasn't a simple acting gig, he was part of the music, and therefore it should be mentioned. If he had only danced around in the video a little, it would be less relevant. There is a difference between 'appearing' which is just acting in the music video and 'featuring' which means they were included in the artistic creation or realisation of the song, and so there is also a difference in relevance. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, means that it should include that which is relevant: not every single little detail, or else we would have pages full of information about people's second uncle's twice removed's donkey that sprained its leg in the spring of 1997. You can read WP:RELNOT, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING for better explanations on what kind of information should and shouldn't be on a page. Besides all of this, MV appearances should be judged on a case-to-case basis with some perhaps being more relevant than others, if they are surrounded by scandal or other kinds of upheaval, but the general rule of thumb is that their inclusion is trivia. PeppermintGlow (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why there should be a difference if they're an actor or no longer an idol- a guest appearance on a show is still just a guest appearance on a show and does little to nothing for their career. Actors will be mostly known for their acting roles, not 's/he was in episode 293 of (variety show name.) Inclusion is great, but don't forget that Wikipedia isn't their resume, it's not here to list everything they've done but what's notable, and guest appearances simply aren't notable. Alexanderlee (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeppermintGlow: I guess you missed the whole point of me suggesting that something of everything should be mentioned without completely removing the sections. Please read it over again just in case. Yes either it's featuring or appearing it should be judged case-by-case without generalizing as there always will be exceptions.

@Alexanderlee: I respect your personal opinion. The reason why I am stressing over the difference is I saw some of the users removing the sections of the artists(who are no longer idols but completely turned into actors/actresses) referring to this discussion which is clearly about Kpop idols and groups. I rest my case. Jolcs (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jolcs: in fairness though, the reasoning is exactly the same. I’m both cases it’s simply a guest appearance which isn’t significant to their career. I’ve done it myself to an actors page and referred to this page, the only difference is one person is a singer and one is an actor but how much it adds to their careers is the same - plus the heading of this section doesn’t mention group members or artists, so group members could simply have been an example as those articles seem to be edited more often. In all honesty, at least to me, it seems a little rediculous to remove guest appearances only from idol articles and not just all from korean related articles Alexanderlee (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee:Heading doesn't mention but the discussion is clearly directed towards idols and their groups. I haven't seen a single actor/actress name in this discussion. Anyway in my opinion not all guest appearances/cameos are obscure. Atleast a few notable ones should be mentioned without completely removing them. Jolcs (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jaehyo's notability

Hello fellow editors, I've recently come across Jaehyo's article, but fail to see the notability. I've added the notability tag to the article, and left a message on the talk page of the article. I'd like to invite other editors to take a look and to add their opinions to the subject. I'm posting this here in the hopes of involving other editors who may not have been aware of the article, and to gain as much insight from others as possible. Thanks in advance, Alexanderlee (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dating news

I've recently seen dating news being removed from articles, and seeing this discussion, I think we should create a discussion here to reach a consensus on this subject. Also looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive250#Do_we_report_celebrity_dating.3F this discussion I personally agree with the conclusion that past relationships are not notable and should be removed from articles. Unless the relationship resulted in children or marriage, I don't see why it is notable to be in an encyclopedia, at the end of the day Wikipedia is not here to list who dated who and for how long. Alexanderlee (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Random tip for tistory uploads

Hi everyone!

I think this place is the most watched page for tistory image uploaders, so as I did while ago, I'd use this page for some tips on tistory blog uploading.

When downloading images from Tistory, try to use /original/ path instead of just downloading the image from the tistory blog. original keeps the original file, while /image/ (the path when you download from the blog) is usually thumbnailed, cached version.

There's noticeable difference in file size and (possibly) resolutions. For example, File:171215 나영 02.jpg was 138KB when downloaded from /image/, but /original/ is about 1MB. This is a rough example and file's size differs file by file.

Merry Christmas then! — regards, Revi 15:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

XXXX in South Korean Music

A lot of changes have been going on recently to pages such as 2017 in South Korean music, along with the previous years regarding the "joining" and "departing" sections of the pages, and I think an agreement should be reached and what lists are actually included in the pages. Before, I didn't see any problem with such lists however I'm beginning to think that the whole sections for "joining" and "departing" should be deleted, and only have sections for "debuting" and "disbanding" groups - of which are notable (have their own article).

I understand that users have worked hard contributing to those lists (especially Similardi), but those lists are becoming long and full of un-referenced information, and are taking up large sections of the pages. I'm suggesting complete removal rather than part removal because not all members of groups are notable for their own article. To me personally, it seems silly to have a list of only notable member changes; especially when you can easily look at this information on their own articles.

I also think that all of the pages on this subject (2005 - 2017) should be massively cleaned up. "Debuting" and "disbanding" sections mostly all need referencing, along with majority of the releases listed in each year. There are also links in various years which are linking to pages that don't exist, or some which have articles and haven't been linked to.

I know these changes may take a while to complete, but I do think they will improve these pages.

What are some other opinions on this? -Alexanderlee (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the joining and departing sections are un-needed, as they do not seem to add much to the category of article at all, other than another huge list of things which can easily be seen at the artists main article. As for the debuting section I think references should be applied to artists who are not yet of notability to have their own article. Abdotorg (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick review of the article and what could be improved:

• 2017 in American music looks much better than this mess, the article could use this as an example for structure. Almost entire "Debuting and disbanded groups in 2017" section should be deleted, only disbanding groups should be listed, and not every single minor, non-notable new group with 100 fans and 1 single, which will never have an article. Debuting groups can be marked in the table somehow (using marking method like "#" or "§", look at some featured lists), there is no need to list them separately since all new groups are already listed in the table, debuting = releasing an album / ep.
• "Label" and "Note" column in the table is not needed, and there should be only albums and EPs listed (including repackages and stuff), and not digital singles I think.
• Why is there "(released MM DD, 2017)" written in the table next to the album name? In the first column in the table there is already a date of release, so this is completely not needed.
• Minor issue – dates should be written without "0" at the beginning (02 August --> 2 August)
• Every TBA should be either deleted or marked as a hidden text for now (using the "<!-- -->" format), if there is no album name or date of release known, then its just a speculation.
• Needs more sources, obviously. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

-Thank you for your inputs. Regarding the "(released MM DD, 2017)", I think that could possibly be because of title tracks occasionally being released as a single before the album? (Such as in Kim Chung-ha's album "Hands on Me (EP) where "Week" was released before the rest of the album in July.)

I do disagree with you on the "Note" column and "debuting" list however. It can be useful to know what is actually being released, and I think we have to remember that Korean music release is slightly different to how it all is in the Western world. Going by what you said, "debuting = releasing an album / ep." this would mean that KARD debuted in 2016, while their official debut was actually in 2017, I agree more with User:Abdotorg's suggestion on this.

As for only listing albums and EPs, I disagree with this too. I do think singles should be included too. For example, B.A.P's latest two releases were "single albums" (does that count as a single more or an album? I think it would clear up confusion for this) If the single is later released as part of an album, such as Chung-ha's "Week" was, then the listing for the single should be removed as it isn't necessary to have it listed twice.
I agree that TBA listings should be marked as hidden, as with your reasoning. -Alexanderlee (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to clear these pages as someone will "crybaby" about it - by-and-large a list of non-notable artists becomes a sprawling trivial mess. Wikipedia isn't here to document every particular group and their happenings (forming, disbanding, losing members). Pages like List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) have been far more consistent in listing only artists that already have articles (presumably notable enough to keep them) - yes I know I've helped enforce some of that.
I believe WP:CSC is clear about creation of lists meeting notability requirements - and the Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a directory. It should be particularly be used here as lists of hundreds of non-notable groups and albums is not something that we should standardize here. Evaders99 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time we clear up these lists, they are getting far too long with un-notable and un-sourced entries. Just to be clear for future reference, what exactly are we including in these pages? Joining/Departing dections completely removed, do we include debuting and departing sections for only artists with their own article? And what about for the releases? I'm still not too familiar with the rules of this so I don't want to suggest something that isn't right. Alexanderlee (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing the joining and departing sections completely and only including artists with their own articles in the debuting and disbanding sections. As for the releases, I think we should only list entries that are sourced and for only artists/albums that have their own articles? Kpopfangirl2013 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the joining and departing sections from these pages, and remove entries without an article from the debuting and disbanding sections of the pages. I'll leave the releases for now until that's discussed a little more - are singles/single albums and OST's to be kept or removed? Alexanderlee (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the worst edit idea I've ever heard. By removing non-article debuting nad disbanding groups because this only adds to Wikipedia's well-known reputation of being non-reliable. I say that non-article groups should be added as long as there is at least 1 RELIABLE source. Otherwise they should not be added.-K-popguardian (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles in wikipedia should only contain NOTABLE content. There are so many groups that debut and disband each year that if we were to list every single one, there would be a never ending list of non-notable information in each article. If they don't have their own article, they're not notable, and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Just because there is a reliable source stating that the group debuted doesn't make it notable and worthy of being in an article. Alexanderlee (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You DO realize that in a REAL encyclopedia, they don't do that right?-K-popguardian (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are recording and retelling history, and you leave out a million details, it's not that accurate.-K-popguardian (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

These articles aren't here to list every single non-notable thing that happens within K-pop. I've asked for a few other editors' inputs and this is the last I shall say until they've shared their input. Alexanderlee (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia prioritises notability over anything else - if a musical artist is notable enough to have an article (per WP:GNG and WP:NMG as usual) then they are therefore notable enough to be a part of the XXX in South Korean music articles. With this in mind it is completely acceptable to remove names and releases of musical artists that do not meet these guidelines. Abdotorg (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• A "REAL" encyclopedia never includes millions of details. It describes what is notable and reliably sourced. That's why we don't have a listing of every pizza restaurant, every person's second cousins, and lists of your favorite colors. Your definition of encyclopedia is not Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia - WP:NOTEVERYTHING Evaders99 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CSC, Alexanderlee and Abdotorg are correct. If the band is not notable to have an own article, it should not be included in that list (or any other list). However, having a red link (no article) does not necessary means that the subject fails notability criterias, it needs to be manually checked – the easiest way to check notability is to see if their releases charted on the Gaon. If they pass notability criterias and still have red links (meaning no one has created an article yet), the band should be included. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Then in that case, as I can see, there may or may not be a typo. See, you typed 2017 in South Korean Music. I think you were looking for 2017 in Biased Opinions, unless I'm sure society is all about what's popular now, and what's not.-K-popguardian (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Suggested release format: linked you can see what I suggest we format the XXX in South Korean music articles like - I suggest dropping the title, notes and label columns, while also dropping digital singles from the list entirely to only include releases that are either studio albums, extended plays or single albums (things you may consider major releases). I suggest that all artists without articles are removed from the releases list until they have their own articles and therefore meet notability guidelines to then be added. I also suggest that genres be cut to a minimum of essentials (as you can see the first feature of the linked review has five genres, but in my opinion; two is more than enough. Abdotorg (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• note: I also believe that single albums (post 2010) should only be listed if they chart on Gaon's album chart - this is to take into account that some "single albums" are essentially just one track and it's instrumental version, which fails to meet Gaon regulations for an album. Abdotorg (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What you've suggested here looks much much cleaner than when you scroll further down - you can really see the difference now, wow. Thank you for this! Since seeing this, I agree even more with your suggestion. As for soundtrack releases which are often listed, they're singles right? I think they should only be listed once a complete compilation album is released for the drama, but only if the drama has an article. Would you say this is fair?

Yes! i agree, OSTs are released almost daily so I definitely think that they should only be listed when they are released in a compilation. Since you seem to be cool with this format I am going to continue the edit on said article until I am happy with it, of course you are more than welcome to chip in on other articles of this type to avoid edit clashes. Abdotorg (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article on Korean popular music in 2017 that doesn't list Twice's "Likey". Congratulations, you have unquestionably FAILED as an editor. Paerarru (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

“Likey” is from the album “Twicetagram”, which IS listed in the article. Alexanderlee (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who did it, but to the guy who suggested removing singles and labels from releases, I say thank you because it was such a burden to find singles from releases over 10 years ago. :)-K-popguardian (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was User:Snowflake91 who first suggested that, but I do believe it improves the article overall Alexanderlee (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• If people are adamant that they believe singles should be included, later on tonight I will go through the pages and add singles back to articles. Title tracks, notes and labels are still not needed, though. I still believe that if an entry doesn't have their own article as of yet they shouldn't be listed yet. If they become notable enough to have their own article in the future, their releases can be listed at that point to avoid going back to messy articles full of releases that are neither referenced or notable. (I'll work on referencing, but obviously that will take far longer to complete.) I'll go through the previous versions to look at what singles were previously listed - if it is a single such as Day6's Every Day6 release I won't list those - they will all be included in the full album in December, as the first half of the year was with Sunrise. SM Station songs are also likely to be in a compilation album once Season 2 is complete, as Season 1 was. I also will not list OST singles. OST's can be listed once the complete OST album is released once the drama is over. Alexanderlee (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I do not think it is a good idea to backtrack so quickly, for now we should stick to my above suggested edit as it presents a lot healthier. As for singles: the XXXX in South Korean music articles were far too crowded they are not here to list every song that was released ever. I understand the view of "[musical artist name]'s digital single is too significant to miss out" and this can definitely be addressed in some other way, similar to 2017_in_American_music#Top_songs_on_record. Abdotorg (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that you’re far more experienced within wikipedia and with the rules and guidelines than I am myself, so I’m more than happy to follow your suggestions. For now I’ll continue to (slowly) search for references for the current releases listed. Alexanderlee (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE DONT ADD SINGLES AGAIN!!! (Seriously, I wrote 1998-2005 in South Korean Music, and you dont know what a burden it is to look up singles from nearly 20 years ago ;_;)-K-popguardian (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You really ruined the article on the 2017 releases in South Korea. It was very well structured and helped the fans. Now it's useless and it doesn't help anyone. Lil' Kaizer (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the singles off the year articles. However, you can always put in the See also those lists such as List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2011. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

joining and departing as well unneeded. For now i think we didn't need to change everything. And why VAV's single didn't include on list? i want to adding it but i need to confirm in here before input as soon as posible rather than delete by another curator. Fenny novita (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think digital singles and OSTs that charted must still included. For example, the debut digital single of Red Velvet/Park Bo Ram did well on the chart. Lots of OSTs also that topped the music chart must still included like the OSTs of Goblin. Other OSTs are not released in a compilation album so I think they must be included. I agree with the new format since it was easier to edit compared to the previous one. Digital single/OSTs that are released way back when KPOP is not popular worldwide can be left behind as what they are but we can change it with the new one. For the year starting 2011, other digital singles and OSTs that performed well in the chart can be included on these pages since KPOP has been known overseas so i think that these singles must still be included. I agree also to one of the comment/opinion about these pages that help the fans know when will be the release of the new album/single(either w/ physical format or digitally released) of their idol. We know that other popular artists nowadays started also from scratch so i think these artists must not be neglected( my opinion about debuting groups).Please think about it carefully. Thank You :)Kpopstan (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this was a place were ALL the music were included, and it was very good to search and find for new releases and music. Only Wikipedia had such a good compilation and useful than any other site. A song/artist not having their own article should not be a reason to delete, because it helps Wikipedia. People coming here to search for the songs, will see artists that they think are good, and will make articles for it with the information they know. It helps the K-Pop pages grow. The page was very clear for me, it just had lots of information, but it should be that way because it is a page that includes all songs released within a year. If the problem is the source, just find a way to tag the songs without source. Why just delete lots of information? This is clearly vandalizing the page. 221.161.111.33 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t a directory to be used how you’re describing. There are other websites with lists of releases, plus more than what Wikipedia previously included. Literally all you have to do is use this magical thing called “google”. Alexanderlee (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jonghyun's Death Section: Help?

Hello editors!

I hope you all had a great Christmas.

I do need help, moreso with what you guys think should be (or shouldn't be, per say) in the Death Section of the Jonghyun article...

TALK DISCUSSION: Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer)#Death section
MY Proposal for what to remove (as striked out): User:Tibbydibby/JonghyunDeathDraft (EDIT: If you guys can, can you also either strike out some more redundant information, maybe add anything that is needed, or do the deleting of the striked out information yourselves in the proposal as I kind of need guidance on what to remove in the article)...

Please do let me know! Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tibbydibby (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place to mention, but there is alot of editing to be done on Jonghyun's page on Simple English Wikipedia and SHINee's. It hasn't been updated since 2009 (SHINee's) and Jonghyun's section hasn't really been edited until very recently (to announce he died.) A little help?-K-popguardian (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Category pages for lesser-known companies

So I've come around noticing that there are several popular K-pop groups mentioned here like N.EX.T, M. Street, T.T.Ma, and NRG that have proved to be incredibly popular, but come from entertainment labels that have no pages on Wikipedia. I tried writing for one, (Danal ENtertainment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danal_Entertainment ) But I didn't have much to write, and the other artists weren't so notable. Still, I think that labels that don't pass notability should have category pages. (ex: Category:List of Danal Entertainnment Artists.) Especially since some of these artists share the same non-notable labels (T.T.Ma and NRG both come from Music Factory.)-K-popguardian (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Should Viu be allowed to post their link on pages?

I noticed recently that there has been a lot of articles that link to Viu streaming pages. Is that allowed? Other external links such as Hancinema, Daum, Naver, and MyDramaList don't stream, they are just databases which provide more info. However, Viu is not. Isn't this considered advertisement? You don't see other TV series articles linking directly to streaming websites such as DramaFever or Viki.

Or does it fall under WP:ELYES, "What can normally be linked: An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply?" CherryPie94 (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe it fails on two terms of WP:ELNO -
* primarily exist to sell products or services - even if free, it is a streaming service
* sites that work only with a specific country - it is only useful for some countries
So no, I think they are not allowed Evaders99 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hiatus section on XXXX in South Korean Music?

Everyone made very clear last year the XXXX in American Music should be used as a model for XXXX in South Korean Music. But on XXXX in American Music, they have a hiatus section. Would that be something to think about adding to XXXX in South Korean Music?-K-popguardian (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not relevant, also companies do not often announce official hiatus' so I feel as if it is not worthwhile. Abdotorg (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

So do we remove it from American sections as well?-K-popguardian (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, what about groups like Akmu that only have 1 to no operating members due to military?-K-popguardian (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Joining/Departure Sections?

Why did we get rid of those again? It appears they are more necessary than we think as proved from Secret-K-popguardian (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@K-popguardian: member changes are relevant to the groups, but they’re not relevant/notable to SK music as a whole therefore they’re not relevant to list, especially considering that member changes are quite common. Secret doesn’t really change that, they’re not the first group to have member changes and legal issues and they unfortunately won’t be the last Alexanderlee (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help reaching a consensus

Hello editors. There is currently a content dispute/edit war at Yoo Ah-in's article, and an admin has protected the article until consensus is reached. If any editors could take a quick look through the recent history and add their input to help reach a consensus on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Damn, that is the biggest edit war I've seen. And I've started KARA edit wars. Still, it confuses me a bit, so what is the overall argument about?-K-popguardian (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's a number of sources that he self-describes himself as feminist and some criticism whether he could be allowed to do so. And the whole controversy is getting removed and other sources that call him "anti-feminist" Evaders99 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

spamlinks to mydramalist from same user CherryPie94

On April 7, 2017 a tag was placed on wikipedia page MyDramaList requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The MyDramaList page was created by wikipedia user CherryPie94. On April 8, 2017 wikipedia user CherryPie94 was reprimanded for "conflicts of interest" pertaining to website "mydramalist" and their edits. Around June, 2017 or November, 2017 the user CherryPie94 changed their name. All of this can be seen here on CherryPie94's archived talk page (not sure how to link it wiki style so pasting the whole url) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CherryPie94/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=819263403.

Since the wikipedia username change, CherryPie94 has monitored & created over 250 external links from wikipedia movies/drama series pages to mydramalist and maintaining the external link templates they created for "mydramalist." This is definitely a conflict of interest (again) and undermines wikipedia's integrity on its articles. (see their templates Category:MyDramaList title ID same as Wikidata & Category:MyDramaList title ID not in Wikidata for specific external links). Again the links were created by the same person who last year was reprimanded for having "conflict of interest" with website "mydramalist." Virtually every Korean drama series that has aired within the last 3 or 4 years now has an external link to "mydramalist" because of CherryPie94. Nicemagnet (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

MyDramaList is easily an unreliable website since its content is user-generated, all links probably needs to be removed. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's all user generated on mydramalist. I just noticed this as well Category:MyDramaList name ID not in Wikidata. The external links to MyDramaList also are added on Wikipedia actors/performers pages. With the link count there at 59. Unbelievable. Nicemagnet (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind if you want to delete it, I added it cause I thought it could help with the variety show appearances that are not allowed on Wikipedia or in Chinese articles with no other English databases to find info from. Per the External links rules WP:ELNO, we are allowed to link websites that give more info than written on Wikipedia (WP:ELNO: What can normally be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons). However, If you see that it should be deleted cause it doesn't follow the rules, please do request for its deletion. I'm interested in editing South Korean related pages, so I have no issue with this. As for Nicemagnet comment, "On April 8, 2017 wikipedia user CherryPie94 was reprimanded for "conflicts of interest" pertaining to website "mydramalist" and their edits." An editor questioned me on this and I showed him/her I'm not related to the website. I made various templates (after seeing people adding link, so I created templates for them to make it easier), such as Daum and Naver, and have been using them. Moreover, I would appreciate not using the old username which I changed due to security reasons and sockpuppets making accounts with similar names. Moreover, if it is spamming that I and other users were adding the external links to various databases, I would argue that some particular users add a lot of Hancinema links too. Also, what is your opinion about the other external links such as Daum, Hancinema, and Naver, so that I know which is allowed and what is not allowed to be linked? If we remove this template, please notify me so that I can help remove link from wiki pages. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: @Nicemagnet: I'm finding something weird about this. Nicemagnet has created an account just to discuss removing the template. As I said before, I have no issue with it getting deleted if Wiki believes it is against WP:ELNO. However, what is weird is that Nicemagnet has not even edited on Wiki at all, so why create an account to remove the template or fish in my archived talk pages? Are you, Nicemagnet, related to the AsianWiki IPs going around on Wiki removing the template and changing your Ip each time it is banned? Cause it is starting to look that way to me. Those Ip claim that MyDramaList has stole their copyrighted synopsis but when I went to check the synopsis of each website, it was different. However, they persisted on removing them and admin intervened to ban them. So, if it a calculated-move from AsianWiki, I don't think this should be accepted. However, if I'm wrong please correct me, so that I apologize. And if Snowflake91 believes it doesn't follow External links guideline, please request the deletion. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with another group or familiar with the IP claim you are talking about. While reading about Korean dramas and movies on Wikipedia, I kept seeing links to mydramalist which seemed off to me. I wasn't familiar with mydramalist, but I checked out the website and I noticed that it was user generated content and doesn't provide any unique resources. So trying to understand why there were so many links to mydramalist, I looked at the history tab for popular Korean drama pages on wikipedia and noticed you were pretty active in monitoring the external links, but you added or allowed so many links to mydramalist. I couldn't understand why, so I clicked your talk page history. I was very surprised to see that under an earlier username, you created and authored the wikipedia page for mydramalist and created the external link templates for linking to mydramalist. You were also questioned about having conflicts of interest with mydramalist by other administrators, but denied that. Then after changing your username (and about 6 months later total?) every new Korean drama series page on Wikipedia has a link to mydramalist. I thought that was questionable and decided to make an account to post it here. Nicemagnet (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry for accusing you. I have been on Wiki since 2013, I think. If I was spamming I would have done it as soon as I made my account. I added the template after encountering the website and seeing that Wikipedia doesn't allow all variety shows credits to be added to actors' pages and seeing other wiki editors adding the links on wiki manually, so I made the template to make it easier for them. Moreover, I'm not objecting to it being removed if it violated the rules. In addition, the template is not related to the username change, don't know why you assume that? As I said before, I changed it due to security reasons and sockpuppets impersonating me. Also, " I kept seeing links to mydramalist which seemed off to me", I would say the same thing about Hancinema which is in almost all K-movie and K-drama pages, don't know why you only assume the template I made is weird when there are tons of other templates being used. As for "I noticed that it was user-generated content", you know that almost the entire Asian IMDb section is user-generated (I edited mostly all of the IMDb Misty page since I'm a fan of the show). So how is IMDb allowed to be linked if it is user-generated content? Moreover, isn't Wiki a user-generated website? As for, "doesn't provide any unique resources", As I said, it does provide unique resources since the database lists variety shows appearances, even the minor ones which are not allowed on Wiki due to the huge amount of detail. Moreover, it is not against the rules if the info is correct. I made the "mydramalist" for the template and it was approved first since the website was one of the top 5000 websites which proves notability, however, we, other editors and I, failed to find secondary sources that are why it was deleted and I did not object to that. Hopefully, this clarifies everything, and if you still believe it should be deleted, please request that here WP:TFD. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Is a South Korean program airing on Viu (Singapore) considered as an (official) international broadcast?

An user asked me about adding the Viu website as an international broadcast in Singapore for page Let's Eat Dinner Together but I refused it. It seems my answer is not convincing and he still has the intention to add the website link (on someday). Can someone help me to discuss with him? It's good if you can take a look and directly discuss in Talk:Let's Eat Dinner Together. Thanks. Kenny htv (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

chanced upon this page. I am the "an user", not very courteous for not pinging me here. I already say UNEQUIVOCALLY I will not add. Wikipedia works on consensus and then i agreed to your POV, consensus = not add on the page (1 oppose / 1 abstained - me). So then why need someone else to explain? I never once say in the page that your response is non convincing. What is my intention to add website link? Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Love_from_the_Star, under International Broadcast Singapore ONE TV ASIA[65] MediaCorp Channel U Viu[66]. This is a B class article which will meet all inline citations and now a GA class nominee. Please consider to cross reference to all project sites rather than have a narrow POV. In addition, look at how I treated an IP (you can scroll down my list of contribution), when they say things that make sense, I will accept. Even if they say things that doesn't make sense to me, but another editor say things that make sense, I will also accept. End of discussion as there is nothing to discuss in the first place . --Quek157 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Appended this response on the page Talk:Let's Eat Dinner Together. put here for reference

Kenny htv response

Quek157. I don't want to ping you in this problem, for what? For more discussions about this? Sorry I don't have a lot of time to do it and English is also not my major. I would not publish anything in the WikiProject talk page if our discussion above ended at "okay Quek157 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) i get it". Because after that, you copied the discussion I sended you and analyzed it. Based on your 3 ("Is there consensus on the link, is one confirmed user asking another, and the "I think") and 4 ("The replying user isn't admin also"), I have understood that you accepted but not completely. So I need other more objective point of views from veteran editors, not only the subjective POV from you or me (because maybe I was wrong about this), that's why I put the discussion in the WikiProject talk page. Thank you! Kenny htv (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)FYI: Link is [1]

Because English is your major, not mine. So, for me to understand well in the next time, please write in common English and avoid as much as possible to abbreviate. Thank you very much! Kenny htv (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My response

Kenny htv Okay, I am in the wrong also for this. Basically this is my commitment, I will not add Viu and that's it. I am of the concern that discussion is too narrow, with only 2 editors commentating which yes, more commentators is key. I am a little concern of veteran editors as what is your definition of veteran editors. As observed in your talk pages as well as other pages, I feel that you tend to cut people off the conversation and have a little odd in putting forth words, I understand that it is your second language. I also don't think this discussion should go any further as the previous discussion of Viu ended up very open and not much have been discussed (which may simply mean nobody is interested in it) and I will say it is no consensus among the entire community. Just like how many pages still do not follow WP:KO/RS and used Viu. In summary, I will not edit pages any further which you have a vested interest in, and will follow all community guidelines as closely as possible. This is the committment to all users. I appreciate your work in all the pages, especially Another Miss Oh, Doctors, LOTJ, Dinner Together as well as all the awards. I don't think the entire discussion will go anywhere, I feel this is like WP:DEADHORSE. Let individual editors use their wisdom for Viu. --Quek157 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kenny htv addition response

Quek157. Thank you for the essay, a good experience for me after reading it.A little point: "Just like how many pages still do not follow WP:KO/RS and used Viu." This is not difficult to understand, as I mentioned in the discussion above, Wikipedia is free to contribute and less controllable in terms of content, so of course, there are people who know and respect the rule alongside with the others who doesn't know or doesn't want to respect the rule. This is the same case of using the form English_title instead of using Template:Interlanguage link for an article which is already existed in other language Wikipedia but not yet in English Wikipeda; or using Allkpop, Soompi or the similar websites as references instead of other reliable sources. Kenny htv (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My additional response

Kenny htv Yes, I agree with all you mention. Let's try to improve articles together! In Korean "끝". --Quek157 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

How to find ratings for shows now (AGB)

Hi, I don't quite know how to transverse naver site for ratings, the AGB nelson site is down since today "Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access denied./Include/Ado.asp, line 8". How shall we find ratings for korean shows on AGB now? Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It works for me, maybe it was a temporary error or a problem with your internet access. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

yupp resolved, out if topic, ratings seems low nowadays , spring time maybe Quek157 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

How to find ratings for shows now (TNmS)

Hi, a general question about TNmS rating. TNmS have stopped publishing their rating report since June 2018. I am wondering how do some editors are still able to get the TNmS ratings in some of the Korean variety/drama shows? Does anyone has any ideas? Kindly share if any. Fiipchip (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fiipchip: You can find the TNmS ratings on the newspapers' website instead of being dependent on Naver, by going to Google then typing the syntax "korean_name_of_the_show tnms" and see the results in the "News" section, just like how I usually do. But it is not always possible to find, if there is an article which mentions the TNmS ratings, I will add it on the show's wiki page and provide also the source, but if not, I will leave empty that part. Kenny htv (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Kenny htv, thank you very much on the advice. Fiipchip (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem with naming JTBC shows in English?

JTBC has a sales department named JTBC Worldwide. If JTBC has a new show but you don't know the title in English, you can count on them as a reference. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

I am requesting assistance in the form of a GA reviewer for the article I nominated, Exo (band). This article has been nominated for 7 months without any reviews, and is the most popular in this WikiProject. If you have any spare time, please consider reviewing this article so we can move this along. If you are a first time GA reviewer, you are able to find instructions and guidance here. You may begin a GA review of this article here. Please consider assisting in improving the quality of this WikiProject. NicklausAU 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

AFD: List of South Korean girl groups

For your consideration, I've put an articles for deletion discussion up on List of South Korean girl groups. Please feel free to comment. Evaders99 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)