Talk:Korean drama/Archive 3

Cleanup
Copyedit and reference, please. -- Visviva 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not effectively analytic?
Korean drama is fun and there is soooo much of it. But: Theatre is a divine place, in which the dramaturge literally constructs a universe. The audience is part of the creation; it's ability to suspend disbelief and give credence to the construct ratifies the drama. This raises interesting problems:
 * Korean dramas rest on a small range of devices. The love triangles and martial exploits noted are part of this. So is a general reliance on "near misses" — places where a revelation that solves problems is just missed. When this happens once in awhile, it is not disturbing; in Korean drama it happens so often as to defy credibility. This damages the suspension of disbelief, casts one back into the "real world".
 * The formulaic character also disturbs what I suppose one could call the "metadramatic element". One suspects that Korea has produced a crop of really fine actors. Some of them have restored the "body language" elements of silent film most effectively (both during the play itself, and in the interminable moody-music bits so beloved of Korean TV dramaturges). One cannot be sure, because just when it seems one is engaged in emotional subtlety (which lends credibility to the whole construct) that damnable formulaic element is asserted and one is not sure what one is seeing.
 * If popular dramas, as constructs that can effect suspended disbelief, are to work, one suspects they have to be sufficiently like what is perceived by a substantial part of the audience as "real". So, we see clan conflict and high-handed behavior in "Jumong"; we similar high-handedness and clannishness in "Goong" and "A Love to Kill". Are we to believe that these are also operative in the common world of the audience? [Actually, some news stories and other information, even discounting, suggest this is the case.]

What I am not finding in Korean TV drama, or in the (smaller) set of Korean films I have watched, are the splendid, dramatically (and cinematographically) sophisticated plays — equivalents of "Roshomon" or "Seven Samurai", or more recently, "The Banquet" or "Not One Less". I would expect to find that, and I have been looking for that kind of sophistication, both in acting and directing, as well as in the screenplay itself. Just when I think I am on to something, I get hit with The Korean Formula bit, and it kicks me out of the narrative and into the metanarrative.

It's beginning to tick me off. Perhaps, if others agree there are difficulties, this might be part of the assessment? --RRassendyll (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

K-dramas are meant to entertain a wide audience via TV. Producers invest in formulas that work. Misunderstandings are as much a part of k-dramas as red herrings are a part of murder mysteries. They serve the same purpose. SilasCreek (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

-should korean dramas always be referred as korean soap operas? i personally don't like much soap operas,but i wrote it because many korean dramas aren't soap operas at all in the traditional sense,korean dramas simply should be clasificaded as korean tv series, korean dramas like city hunter or dream high don't look like soaps to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.78.46 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the definition of soap opera; "open-ended" is the operative phrase. Most k-dramas popular overseas are not open-ended. For males, "soap opera" is usually a perjorative. Many k-dramas are written by women and express the female interest in relationships, particularly with family and marriageable males. To some men (not this one), this kind of story is, by their definition, a soap opera, especially if a lot of tears flow. In Queen In Hyeon's Man, notice that the "writer" in the k-drama within a k-drama is a woman. Self-reference is a humorous feature of k-dramas. TVs on set typically show one running. SilasCreek (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Style
Shouldn't it be mentioned how Korean dramas were heavy on the melodrama until recently? SKS2K6 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to calibrate the melodrama scale or how to put that in words. But there seems to be a recent trend of dramas featuring historical settings than before (e.g. Daejanggeum). Hurrah 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with the need to mention the melodrama aspect, there should be more information on other genres and the history of Korean television, outside of just works that happened to be popular overseas. This article seems to be concentrating too much on Hallyu at the moment, when there is already another Wiki article on that subject. (Daso88 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

The definition of "soap opera" is clear, i.e., no beginning or end, but the definition of "melodrama" is pretty subjective. In fact, most novels, movies, and non-comedic TV series need melodramatic moments or else the reader or viewer will fall asleep. Likewise, almost all modern plots in the West have a more or less stereotypical hero and/or heroine climbing a hill that gets steeper and steeper. For a writer, how else can you make money? For a reader or viewer, why else would you risk the time? A more useful word for criticism of stories is "contrived" ("cheesy" is a synonym). When a writer contrives something in a plot, it doesn't fit. It's jarring. It makes the reader or viewer realize that it's just fiction. One of the advantages of Korean dramas is that the writers have hours to set up the plots in such a way that nothing should seem contrived. A good example is City Hunter. The dramatic and ironic endings of Eps 7 and 8 fit the story perfectly, as does the Shakespearean climax in the last episode. When you're writing a story that is not inherently dramatic, however, it takes a lot of skill to set up the plot so that it doesn't seem contrived and yet keeps the reader or viewer hooked. That's why many middle episodes of k-dramas seem slow, Winter Sonata being a good example. The writer or writers are setting-up for the next turn of events. The easy way out, long since understood in western drama, is never to write a story which is not inherently dramatic. Homer, I think, said, "Tell only about kings and princes." American films and novels are laced with sex, violence, crime, science fiction, fantasy and CGI for their inherent drama. Korean dramas are trending this way, too. But how do you hold viewers to a 20 hour story, Winter Sonata, about 2 seemingly ordinary kids who fall in love in high school and eventually marry, a sequence that happens every day? The "melodrama" at the end of Ep 2 is essential. The subsequent 18 hours build on and revolve around that ending. It's contrived only in the sense that Hobbits are contrived. SilasCreek (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Koreans themselves refer to the serious k-dramas as "melodrama." For instance, Choi Ji Woo, the star of Winter Sonata, said she wanted to shift from being a melodrama queen to a romantic comedy queen. In My Girlfriend is a Gumiho, the hero, Cha Dae Woong, tells the Gumiho that as an actor he's never done "melo" before. He then proceeds to read her some poetic dialog. Keep in mind, however, that English is not the native language of Korea. It's pretty clear from Gumiho, a Hong sisters script, that Koreans use an alternate definition of "melodrama." Namely, any story that is not a romantic comedy or an action movie (Cha Dae Woong is an action-movie actor) must be a "melodrama." This definition is not bad, except that I would include action movies as melodrama. SilasCreek (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

arent korean drama's also called banjun drama or banjun theatre?

Length of k-dramas
One aspect that sets k-dramas apart from movies and much of TV is their length. As the article mentions, they are in the "mini-series" format. The classic examples of this format are BBC dramatizations of early British novels. The Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice runs 300 minutes. The American mini-series Lonesome Dove, based on a McMurtry novel, runs 384 minutes; Clavell's Noble House, 355 minutes. One of the shorter 16 episode k-dramas might run 960 minutes.

The long format has a lot of advantages. For producers, the format maximizes the ratio of setup costs to revenue. Also, writers can sell more words in one fell-swoop. Actors and make-up artists can stretch their skills, because the central requirement of the long format is that characters evolve with events. For viewers, it's the difference between a short story and a novel, a song and a symphony.

The long format is a challenge for all, however. As I've discussed earlier, some of the complaints and criticisms of k-dramas as "melodrama," "soap opera," and "formula" result from the difficulty of the format to writers. Good discipline generally requires that no new plot element or significant character appear after the initial set-up phase of a story. Since the single-threaded k-dramas follow this faithfully, episode ratings, available for some k-dramas, show that it is a perpetual struggle to keep viewers hooked for another 15 or more hours. The long format actually works best with tight writing, such as the first 3 episodes of Winter Sonata, where every scene, and almost every word, reverberate later; the first 2 minutes foreshadow the entire 20 hours. One of the Hong sisters once said, "How to stay true to the characters while continuing to be entertaining throughout a 16-episode miniseries is something that we have to continue to ponder over and work on."

As far as I know, what's not appreciated yet is that the long format exemplified by k-dramas is ideal for Internet streaming. You can't sit in a movie theatre or playhouse for 16 hours. But k-drama fans routinely report lost weekends and ruined social lives from being glued to their computers from start to finish. Technology has enabled an art-form not available to Shakespeare or Preston Sturges.

In short, South Korean television has co-opted a format that has many advantages, challenges and a bright future. While it's not appropriate to say all this on the article page, it explains some of the changes I've made in the last few days. I've tried to make it clearer to Wikipedia readers that, above all else, most of the shorter k-dramas are basically just movies, at present written mostly by women, in a long format.

SilasCreek (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wish List

 * more information on the international popularity of K-drama, especially in non-East Asian countries:
 * the Middle East?
 * the USA?
 * what makes Korean dramas different/successful?
 * These days, what sets k-dramas apart is mostly length (see below) and the fact that they're a prime time show dominated by female screenwriters. I've noted these facts in the article. So hopefully this wish has been addressed.SilasCreek (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * more on NK drama
 * Rewrite the article so it's not all PoV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.204.119 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this wish has been addressed.SilasCreek (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More about their lack of popularity in Europe, Africa, Australasia and South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.204.119 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * fewer extremely biased statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.134.113 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this wish has been addressed.SilasCreek (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More on the long sa geuks; the one short paragraph for this large and important category is inadequate; a good neutral overview in its own section, with references to synopses in Wikipedia for the most important ones and references to Wikipedia articles on the historical persons. Maybe arrange the sentences chronologically, with the ones dealing with earliest history first. SilasCreek (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

History of K-dramas
I write a book log that also covers things I watch. I've been watching a lot of K-dramas lately, so have been writing about them. Since my book log is for the Usenet newsgroup about science fiction and fantasy, I have to be careful with the length of my writing. Recently I found a resource that extensively covers the history of K-dramas, and responded by knitting it together with a bunch of other sources to write at least a first draft of an actual narrative history, complete with sourcing.

Of course, this makes it WAY too long for my book log.

But I've been using Wikipedia's coverage of K-dramas heavily throughout, and it dawned on me it wouldn't be inappropriate in this article. So I'm going to put it here, trying to replace the few things that I can document only through Wikipedia articles with more real references.

Since I don't read Korean, all my references are in English. (Well, I cited one Korean Wikipedia page, but see above.) People who read Korean should be able to improve what I wrote quite a bit. I look forward to that.

Joe Bernstein  joe@sfbooks.com

I'm not a registered Wikipedian. What bona fides I have can be seen in the article Judiciary Act of 1793 and in the history section of the article State income tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.76.89 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, OK, I forgot the tildes. Anyway. I've now posted a first draft of the adaptation from my book log to Wikipedia.

The single biggest issue by far is that this draft is OVERWHELMINGLY dependent on a single source, a dissertation finished and approved only this year. I see no reason to distrust this source much at all, but still. I cited confirmations wherever I had them, and in a few cases other Wikipedia articles confirm, but things will be much better if someone who can read Korean does some drastic surgery on both the section and its references.

Minor issues:

Of course a lot of stuff was deleted for reasons of tone, links to the rest of the book log, etc. I deleted several paragraphs about formats because the rest of the article more or less covers that. I also deleted explanations of the networks, since the Wikipedia links obviate them, but I wish I could've countered the widespread specious claim that in 1969 MBC was "private". It was owned by the foundation that still owns 30% of it, a foundation essentially run by dictator Park Chung-Hee and his friends; his daughter, now president of South Korea, used to run it, though probably not as far back as '69. (Go to "Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation". Go to the Korean version.  In the info box on the right side of the page, click the link associated with 30% ownership.  That's the foundation that owned MBC in 1969.  If you need to, feed the entry to Google Translate; the results are weird, turning a scholarship fund into a water treatment plant, but they leave no doubt about the foundation's basic identity.)  Probably the MBC article should be edited to clarify this, by someone who can actually read the Korean Wikipedia page. Most of the rest of the issues about MBC's ownership are already covered there.

I think it's mildly unfortunate that I had to take out stuff that amounts to original research, to wit: Worldcat knows of no English-subtitled videotapes of K-dramas. (Go to subject "Television plays" and then pick language Korean and format VHS, there's your field.) I also haven't yet found any DVDs there with English subtitles of shows older than . (In particular,  and the 1987  don't seem to be available with English subtitles anywhere.) I wanted to adduce the latter as evidence of 's game-changing nature. (Once I've seen it, I'll probably look for a way to revive a Wikipedia page about it, without registering as a Wikipedian. I'm reluctant to do the latter because I don't really want to spend the necessary sixty to two hundred hours finding and reading up on all your policies.)

I wish I could read the reference provided by Robinson about radio dramas, or any other history of Korean broadcasting, so as to find out when they transitioned from theatrical plays to serials.

I wish I had info about the 1980s exports. Jeon only references interviews she did. Considering that Shim explicitly denies that either East Asian or European exports happened before 1992, I'm curious where the heck the shows did go, if they in fact went anywhere.

I cut out some stuff about the nature of government support and about the popularity of  and of  (removing the latter entirely, though I suspect it's the main reason for the 2010-11 spike in exports) because I wasn't sure I could adequately support it. (There seems to be no such thing as a reliable list of high-rated K-dramas; Electric Ground's which I cited seems to be closest; there are longer editions of it in Korean, but they're earlier in date, so they leave out more recent shows. The easier to find list at Dorama x264 is junk.  There's no list of K-dramas ranked by *average* ratings in English; the one I've found in Korean is also junk.)

I had to cut out the URL that provides evidence that YA Entertainment got going in 2003, because Wikipedia blacklists the site. If you go to the D-Addicts main page and click on "Licensed K-dramas" (that may not be exact, it's from memory), you'll find it. That page also links to the YA "farewell letter" that's one of several broken references I'll fix today.

Oh, and speaking of blacklisting the site. *By far* the most useful single informational site on K-dramas in English is DramaWiki, which is a sub-site of D-Addicts. It's about a hundred times more useful, on each drama it covers (which is more dramas than just about anyone else, something like four times as many as Wikipedia), than that Hancinema.net site y'all are so punctilious about linking to. It's perfectly plausible to me that D-Addicts has something to do with spam, as suggested by your profoundly unclear blacklisting notice, considering that it's essentially an illegal site to start with. But it's also perfectly plausible to me that Wikipedia is just pissed off at a site that covers a topic better than Wikipedia does. (They don't hesitate to link to *you*.) Oh, and I've used DramaWiki *tons*, and seen no uptick in spam as a result. So phooey.

The last thing I took out was some speculation that maybe K-dramas are in some sort of decline. YA closing is one aspect of this; the other is that I thought I'd heard somewhere (on Wikipedia?) that younger viewers in South Korea are starting to turn away from K-dramas. Admittedly  argues against this, but the other question would be what absolute numbers its ratings represent versus previous smashes (including , , etc.). Anyway, I should hope there would be more interesting news about the past decade in K-drama than any of what I give, but I don't know what it is.

All for now. Some references fixed soon.

Joe Bernstein  joe@sfbooks.com 128.208.76.89 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia is not "pissed off". Wikipedia wants to rely on reliable sources. Wikis are edited by anyone and everyone and therefore anythign can be in there, things that are not true as well. It's not by chance that you cannot use another Wikipedia article, either, to source any other Wikipedia article. You need to use credible, tracable sources. And not fan sites. Not blogs. Not forums. Not community compiled fan resources. We need academic sources and reliable newspapers. That's all. :) Teemeah 편지 (letter)  08:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Written In The Heavens Subbing Squad is not a reliable source. Found the archived version of the PDF, no sources are cited in that whatsoever. The series is written by a blogger. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You may not realise that you've cited the same blogger twice; he's "X", aka "MisterX", who was long a fansubber, and who has apparently spent much of his life in Busan. Looks like Yumcha has editors; I assume Twitchfilm does too, but they don't admit to it up front, so I'm not sure.  All the same, you're citing his writing about the history of K-dramas in short forms with, at least hypothetically, editors, but not his independent, unedited, writing, correct?  Whatever.


 * Anyway, I thought you knew Korean, so why aren't you citing the several books on the subject in that language? I've now finally seen
 * 드라마, 한국 을 말 하다 : 최초 의 드라마史 면서 드라마 로 보는 사회 문화사 by 김 환표, and it has nothing I can deal with until and unless I know the language, but it should be useful for such as do, nor is it the only such book out there. Do you lack access?  If so, I should be able to scan and send you materials as you wish, to the extent that the University of Washington has them, which is decent.


 * As long as your version of the article is up for inner-Wikipedia praise, by the way. I think it's an excellent introduction to K-drama, but I also note that you continue to rely on a bunch of the sources whose unreliability, in Wikipedia's warped estimations, led to my giving up on this site.  In particular, Jeon, which you cite many times, is a dissertation, none of whose supervisors give any evidence of knowing Korean.  This is one reason you should really be looking at those books, so please do let me know if you want my help.


 * Joe Bernstein  joe@sfbooks.com
 * 173.250.180.199 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just in case you ever read and respond to this, I guess I'd better correct myself. I've recently been trying to pin down the actual dates of the HLKZ dramas - the most anyone seems to know is July 1956 천국의 문, August 조국, September 사형수; in this regard 김 환표 seems to say just the same things X does, in fewer words, and there are also tons of sites online that say about the same, including one site selling papers to Korean students!  So I've had occasion to try the books available here, and there are a lot fewer than I thought.  In particular, 김 환표 has only three cites on HKLZ; two are newspaper articles, while the third is a three-page chapter in a book primarily, per the title, concerned with the sociology of dramas:  이기하, "한국 TV 드라마 제1호 기념작 - HLKZ-TV '천국의 문'", 오명환, 텔레비전 드라마 사회학 (나남출판, 1994).  And I have no access to this book, so can provide none.


 * So the offer still stands but is worth much less than I thought. The only more or less chronological account of K-dramas we seem to have here is indeed 김 환표's book.


 * (By the way, neither Worldcat nor Google Web seems to know Jeon's source re 1956, 한국 드라마의 역사 from the Korea Drama Festival Organization.)


 * On a different note, I may be finding evidence of actual unreliability, as opposed to Wikipedia's idea of it, in X's account. As you note, he doesn't cite sources, but his account is personally oriented enough that it's pretty obvious that interviews underlie it, probably through some form of mediation.  (His 1962 yearbook is full of quotes of drama reviews from newspapers; he may well have relied on newspaper interviews.  Or he may have done the interviews himself.  I dunno.)  In search of those dates I went to the  TV listings for 1956 to, so far, 1958.  I can do little with the listings themselves, which are in what Wikipedia calls "mixed script", since I know no Hanja; it isn't evidential at all that I didn't find those Hangul titles in them.  But at least according to the , which is a huge caveat, HLKZ was on air MUCH less consistently than X describes, and also never (through Feburary 1958 anyhow) cut back from a 2-hour broadcast to 1.  I can cross-check these listings with those in the  and the , but not with the , which he says owned HLKZ from 6 May 1957, so should presumably be the most reliable source (as well as the likeliest to use much Hangul).  Note that if, as he says, a fire destroyed HLKZ 2 February 1959, there won't be nearly as much documentary evidence as usual.


 * Other elements of his account *are* being confirmed. He says they took Fridays off; in fact, the  carries significantly fewer HLKZ listings for Fridays than for other days of the week.  He says a Tuesday night drama series began under the ; in fact, the <Chosun Ilbo> has HLKZ listings on Tuesdays significantly more often than other days.  (No, I haven't done statistical tests yet, but I'm pretty sure those claims would stand if I did.  I haven't checked Tuesdays before 6 May 1957, though.)  And then, of course, there's the meme-like list of the First Three K-Dramas, where there's a tidal wave of confirmation.


 * Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com>
 * 108.179.187.161 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 173.250.146.52 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Publishing on a Twitch (which is recognized as a reliable source) and publishing on a personal fansub blog are two different things. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  18:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oddly, that's what I'd already said: "you're citing his writing about the history of K-dramas in short forms with, at least hypothetically, editors, but not his independent, unedited, writing, correct?"  I did read a ton of Wikipedia documentation not too long ago.


 * And that's how I know that dissertations are not normally considered reliable sources here. I have no problem at all with relying on Jeon, but Wikipedia apparently does.  This difference is one of the few main reasons I gave up attempting to meet Wikipedia's standards; I'm quite sure it's real.  So why haven't you responded to my offer to supply you with a more Wikipedia-reliable source?  You can always say "no" if you don't want it.


 * (Note that I'm not claiming reliability for myself. I'll be posting a bunch of changes to the comments above re newspaper listings when I've done a bunch more work; in particular, though, the <Chosun Ilbo>'s publication of them cannot be taken as a reliable guide to HLKZ's broadcast schedule, which is proven by its publishing *no* TV listings between 8 April 1958 and 3 January 1959.  I'll also be hiding those parts of my comments above at that time, but not this parenthesis.  I have now, however, put in 김 환표's source re HLKZ.)


 * Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com>
 * 173.250.146.52 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Im Not Confused About The Date But It Is Puzzling
Why can I see the awesome dramas from ascending order but not descending order ? Im clicking the date bar and thats all that displays, the ascending order. BatmobileFire (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean drama. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208024300/http://www.agbnielsen.co.kr/ to http://www.agbnielsen.co.kr/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korean drama. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427014851/http://www.caravanmagazine.in/Story/522/Korea-Comes-to-Manipur.html to http://www.caravanmagazine.in/Story/522/Korea-Comes-to-Manipur.html
 * Added tag to http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/01/16/akita-sees-huge-increase-in-korean-tourists/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722141428/http://www.thaiembassy.or.kr/en/about/thai_rok_relations.htm to http://www.thaiembassy.or.kr/en/about/thai_rok_relations.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160601140426/http://www.nielsenkorea.co.kr/tv_terrestrial_day.asp?menu=Tit_1&sub_menu=3_1&area=00 to http://www.nielsenkorea.co.kr/tv_terrestrial_day.asp?menu=Tit_1&sub_menu=3_1&area=00

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Korean drama. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125180058/http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2010/02/10/korean-wave-washes-over-brunei to http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2010/02/10/korean-wave-washes-over-brunei
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130113145/http://blog.aseankorea.org/archives/817 to http://blog.aseankorea.org/archives/817
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130113149/http://blog.aseankorea.org/archives/11041 to http://blog.aseankorea.org/archives/11041
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923202024/http://www.ceylontoday.lk/11-10383-news-detail-the-korean-wave-is-on-its-way.html to http://www.ceylontoday.lk/11-10383-news-detail-the-korean-wave-is-on-its-way.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725174935/http://www.kofice.or.kr/n_webzine/200711/eng/entertainment_report_taekok.html to http://www.kofice.or.kr/n_webzine/200711/eng/entertainment_report_taekok.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602195626/http://twitchfilm.com/2009/11/back-in-the-day---01-eternal-empire-and-chungmuros-love-hate-for-history.html to http://twitchfilm.com/2009/11/back-in-the-day---01-eternal-empire-and-chungmuros-love-hate-for-history.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t · c)  buidhe  13:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Korean drama → Korean dramas – For changing the singular form to plural. Most of the reliable sources uses plural form. Time Forbes  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  14:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Compare with Spaghetti Western, not Spaghetti Westerns, for example.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as with the above, WP:SINGULAR. Most sources probably talk about "cats" and "dogs" as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ratings
Please note how and why the ratings numbers were changed. Part of the section had the percentages as 0.0% figures. The other had 0.000% figures. This is inconsistent. Also, a one-thousandth of a percent (0.00x%) is not a meaningful figure. The percent rating numbers are now consistent within the section. And, more importantly, the reader can look and see what the ratings are. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aheuer, Jamiej199722.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Singles Inferno" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Singles Inferno and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)