Talk:List of A Pink members

Unreliable sources
The reason I considered this article Unreliable is that the article uses too much AllKpop and Soompi sources, which is considered unreliable. &mdash; Revi 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining the reason. I will try to find more reliable sources. Is this the list of reliable sources? Do you have any recommendation for sites that updated with kpop news like allkpop or soompi but more reliable? Because I usually found them either reliable or updated but not both. Also How about Daum profile, Naver Profile or Melon profile? are they considered reliable sources? Thank you Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those (Naver, etc.) sites are just search engines, actually, though they make some profiles and such. Where they pull information from is unknown.  You should look for actual stories about the members, not profiles.  There actually aren't a lot of reliable kpop sources, even in Korean, and the info known about members is controlled almost entirely by their agency.  That's why it's hard to have good articles about members of groups - just no way to get enough reliable and non-trivial info to make a whole article.  Most info out there is about the groups and the only info on members tends to be what variety shows they've been on and stuff, which is pretty trivial and non-encyclopedic.  By the way, I'm wondering why this isn't just a section in the A Pink article?  Is it a length thing?  I really have no suggestions for sources because my guess is there are none for this topic. :( Shinyang-i (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I wanted to add that these short paragraphs on each member are exactly the kind of thing that are appropriate in kpop articles. They're 1000 times better than member tables because they contain actual information in prose.  Tables emphasize trivial information and make it difficult to add anything meaningful.  I'd encourage you to put this back into the A Pink article, if you can get good sources. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shinyang-i. I think it will be the right length to put back into the A Pink article once the more trivial and un-reliably sourced info is taken out. I will help look for sources, but if Allkpop et al. is the only source the info can't be included. --Random86 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah I was thinking either to put it into article or stand-alone list. I look into another group page but they usually have either individual page or stand-alone list like EXO and One Direction. Moreover, I saw in most wiki article, they put lengthy section into separate page so I though it was the common practice here. But I think it's actually better if we can put it in the main article, so I have no objection as long as there are not too much information that get deleted.


 * About the sources, Thank you Random86 for the help. I've replaced some of the akp sources. Btw how about using video as a source? Because usually there are things they said during interview on Radio, TV or Variety show. I wonder how does usually editor or reliable sources for articles on US celeb beside gossip sites? I still saw some of them like Selena Gomez page heavily used TMZ and E! online as sources. Also are tweets considered reliable sources? Because they used tweet as source for birth date of one direction member Sonflower0210 (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Great questions. Self-published stuff like tweets can be reliable for some information like a person's birthday, if it comes from the person in question.  Same with interviews in video.  But a person's own claims are often much like their agency's claims - made in one's own self-interest.  So for a birthday it's probably okay (although age is one of the most common lied-about things in all entertainment industries) but for other info it is self-publicity and thus unreliable.  I know of a kpop celeb who, from his own mouth, has consistently lied about many aspects of his background, so yeah people do lie about themselves all the time.  It shouldn't be a source used for record releases or anything like that.  It can also be a source of a lot of unencyclopedic trivia - reliable, maybe, but not fit for Wikipedia.  You just have to be really careful when using self-published sources is all.  They are definitely overused on kpop articles, and there is the problem of them also being the only source for a lot of info published in secondary sources, such as concert attendance and such. (not much we can do about that last part though)


 * As far as US celebs, I have no idea. Sometimes, the publication of info by TMZ can in itself be a story, in which case TMZ's info itself isn't being used as reliable, but the publication of the info by TMZ is what's being discussed.  Many times something on TMZ gets addressed directly by the artist in other sources, so there can be cases like that, which is different than straight-up citing TMZ as a source for info.  Like when Tablo had that problem with the mob of goons in that online community slandering him - the community was used as the source of information which Tablo addressed; he wasn't saying the info was true and using them as a source, he was addressing what they said in that community.  Does that make sense?  Anyway, without reading the Selena Gomez article I can't say that's what's happening, but it's a possibility.  I'm sure her article is subject to tons of edit wars with unreliable info. Entertainment sites like E! can sometimes be used for unlikely-to-be-challenged information like "such and such attended the awards show", but the problem lies in whether editors can separate what's trivial from what's not (see WP:FART).  Kpop editors often are unable to do that, including every tiny little detail of someone's life as important, encyclopedic information just because an entertainment site reported it, or claiming a person is notable because they were mentioned in entertainment news in a list of attendees at an event.  There tends to be a lot more editors and a lot more experienced editors overseeing Western celeb articles than kpop articles, so "farts" get removed there while they tend to remain in kpop.  I don't know if I'm making any sense here, but I hope it was helpful. :)Shinyang-i (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah but I don't think misrepresentation of age is kpop problem but I think it's the ent industry problem. Us celeb like J.Lo, Eminem, Sandra Bullock, etc previously also lied about their age. About the TMZ think I think I kinda get it, you mean if the media is involved in this situation like "Ailee and Allkpop" situation, it's actually not really the case for Selena Gomez but anyway It's not really my problem and LOL WP:FART was so much fun to read. I honestly don't get why editors tend to put teaser release info and never updated the info for the actual release. It's kinda weird to read an article with only teaser info and still expected comeback when its like 2 years old release.


 * Anyway I meant beside for BOD that we can use primary source, Can we use video interview or magazine interview as source? is it still considered primary source so it's not considered reliable source? Even though it's written by Reporter? I can't find specific information about interview on the wiki policy.


 * Also I have replaced all the allkpop and soompi for the "List of Apink Members" article. I think there are no longer source from those forbidden site. How can i request for the removal of the tag? or are we gonna move them back to main article? How should we do it? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, removed Unreliable source. I see some issues with referencing, but bot should be able to fix it as soon as it is fixed from 'no webservice' error occured by labs restart. &mdash; Revi 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , oh I didn't mean to imply that lying about age is a Kpop thing; you are right that it is a worldwide thing for sure! As far as interviews, yes they can be used of course, as they are great sources of info, especially to clear up confusing issues.  But it all kind of goes along with the twitter situation in that you have to just keep in mind things that could influence the accuracy of the info and make sure those aren't your only sources.  It's all about being smart as to how you use sources and weighing them appropriately.  And of course for establishing notability, an interview published by major media carries a lot more weight than something published on an artist's own site or youtube channel.  It sees like you have a good understanding of how to use sources, and if issues come up, just talk them out with other editors, just like we're doing.  As far as merging the article, what do you think?  There can be an open comment period over the idea. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tag removal and the fixed. I'm still trying to work on finding more reliable source for Apink main article.


 * Thank you for the discussion about reliable sources, it's really helpful. About the merging, I think it's a good idea to move it to the main page. I'll try to work on the format so it will fit on the main page. According to WP:MERGE, "For uncontroversial mergers, no permission is needed to merge; just do it. If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it." I think this merger should be uncontroversial? What do you think? I've never done merge before, are this all the steps we need to take? Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)