Talk:Crayon Pop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class[edit]

Marking as class c, as per definition (seeing as there's apparently some debate about this article): C -- The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
The general article needs to be looked over by someone with editing experience. I might do it later. Strangejames (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled][edit]

Kim Min Yeong (born April 02, 1990), known by her stage name Ellin, is a South Korean idol singer and dancer. She is a member of Crayon Pop.

Current breakout and success wave[edit]

Shouldn't the article be expanded? They are being compared to Psy because of their current single, the comparison is set using the reference to its dance routine, Gangnam Style had the horse dance, and Barbarbar received the Pump Engine or Cylinder Engine codename. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Bar Bar has only some 2,5 million views on YT so far, which is very far from what Gangnam Style achieved. I do think the article should be more refined in some parts, especially in terms of language. But I'm not a native speaker. 88.117.26.15 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K.[edit]

Here too Dr.K. is making his usual deletions and accusations: https://sites.google.com/site/drkdrmies/ Badbutgood34 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to what amounts to a tantrum site? If you have an issue with one or more people making edits you feel are not within the spirit of Wikipedia there is a system in place to deal with it, use that. It's no secret that many of the pages dealing with Korean subjects start out as direct translations which never read well. This particular article still reads like a child's story rather than an encyclopedic entry. It needs work along with most of the other Korean pages yet to have been worked over by someone versed in both languages. If Dr.K and friends are behaving in a way that violates the TOS they'll be dealt with however if you continue to link to that site you will end up with your own day in WikiCourt©. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes or no?[edit]

"Crayon Pop spoke in English on the UK's only radio show dedicated to Korean music, K-Pop Korner.[1] Despite not speaking English, the group explained to host Adam Riley[2]" -- "spoke in English" -"not speaking in English" -- Well, did they or did they not speak in English? Should the first sentence read some-thing like "CP appeared on..." (if one can appear on radio)? Kdammers (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last names[edit]

Why are the girls last names not given anywhere in the article?

Momoiro Clover Z[edit]

I'm very sorry, but I can't agree to removing this part from the article. It has been covered by multiple reliable sources, therefore it's important. Sorry. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K.: The vast majority of these K-pop so called "plagiarism" cases are not plagiarism. Just "controversies". (If you look in the article history, when I initially added something about Momoiro Clover Z to the article, I didn't call it "plagiarism", just "copying".) Therefore the proposed rules about listing "proven plagiarism cases only" and only "proven plagiarism and plagiarism accusations made by copyright owner" won't work. I would even say the rules are a very good trick to delete all mention of all possible controversies related to copying some other artist from all K-pop articles.

And the rules were discussed at some other article, not here. And there's no special "Plagiarism" section here, the person who started the discussion just didn't like a section called "Alleded plagiarism" in the article about A Pink. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you already participate in the centralised discussion involving several editors in the talkpage of A Pink, as Random86 also mentioned in his edit-summary, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. Amongst those participating there, I know Random96 and TerryAlex, both of whom I trust and consider serious editors. The other editors also look knowledgeable and serious. I trust Random86 when s/he invoked the centralised discussion as the justification for the removal and for sure I would not think s/he is up to any "tricks". I also trust that even if s/he is wrong, the rest of the editors will intervene to correct his/her action. What I objected to, as a neutral external observer, was your revert of his action without, at the time, having participated in the centralised discussion or obtained consensus for it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: The discussion at A Pink is too long already, so I will just state my opinion about this particular case.
  1. This group practically started off copying Momoiro Clover Z. (Their first physical single "Bar Bar Bar" copied the style of Momoiro Clover Z.) The matter was noticed by netizens or whoever (it doesn't matter who noticed) and was written about in multiple reliable sources. (E.g. JoongAng Ilbo is certainly very respected and reliable.)
  2. What do we have in the article "Bar Bar Bar"? No mention of the controversy, only praises and awards.
  3. What do we have here (in this article)? Removed complelely [1].
What should I think? The article in fan POV. And the discussion at A Pink will result in practically banning all accusations of copying other artists from all K-pop articles, in censoring the whole Wikipedia. (Taking into account that there have been many, many accusations of plagiarism against K-pop artists, it's a very serious matter. Just search Google for "K-pop, plagiarism", there have been probably hundreds of accusations.)
I don't know about A Pink or whatever, but I know I'm right in this particular case and I want this information back. And I want the matter to be mentioned in the article about the single. I can find more sources if you want. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Drmies to look at this. :) (I just have no idea who else to ask.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: I've already said a lot in the other discussion so I'm not going to repeat it all here. But when you said, "This group practically started off copying Momoiro Clover Z", your own bias is showing IMO. Your second statement even more so; it is not a fact that "Bar Bar Bar" was copied from anything. Like TerryAlex and I said, netizens are constantly making accusations and it gets reported in the news; that's why you'll find hundreds of accusations. --Random86 (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I should copy some of my statements from A Pink's discussion to here so some of the newer participants can see the point more clearly, but practically Kpop netizens are very crazy and ridiculous. They can make up hundred of accusations without any justifications, including them on here is just making Wikipedia become a tabloid journalism; it also damages the artist's reputation for no reason.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it gets reported in the news does not make it "notable". Because the original source is still the netizens (anonymous) and like I said, they can and have made up many baseless accusations.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(to both of you) Your argument is ridiculous. The matter was discussed in reliable sources in detail and there was an official response from the group [2], [3], [4]. It's not a netizens problem anymore.
It's expecially strange to hear when most content in K-pop-related articles in Wikipedia is based on user-generated content like Allkpop. While here I'm showing you actual reliable sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arisa[edit]

No mention of Arisa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.131.90 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arisa was never mentioned in reliable news sources as far as I know. She was never actually part of the group anyway. Random86 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crayon Pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crayon Pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crayon_Pop&oldid=1206821314"