Talk:List of South Korean girl groups

Generational divide is questionable
Wanted to address the odd divide between first, second, third and fourth 'generations' in this article - while this terminology should, IMO, be included (as it's commonly used when talking about the subject), I don't think yours is done clearly enough to be worth the addition. It also hinges on the popularity of K-pop in the West, which seems regressive and might wane at any time anyway.

I've previously only seen fans mark the generations in terms of the Big 3 companies (JYPE, SM, YG) and their rounds of girl group debuts, which is at least consistent and correlates with larger industry trends. Using this system, the generations would be divided as follows:


 * 1st generation: everything until the debut of Wonder Girls (2007)
 * 2nd generation: Wonder Girls (2007) until Red Velvet (2014)
 * 3rd generation: Red Velvet (2014) until Itzy (2019)
 * 4th generation: Itzy (2019) to present
 * 5th generation: will only begin once Itzy, aespa and YG's next girl group have all been established in the industry, and when one of these companies decides to debut a new group.

This would mean G-IDLE, Loona etc. actually belong to the 3rd generation, as do many on the 4th gen list. Only 18 groups currently fit the Wiki notability guidelines and belong to the 4th gen: the most successful so far are Itzy, Aespa, Weeekly and STAYC.

Generation 5
Babymonster are considered as 5th Generation as 5th Generation had already begun in 2023 according to many reliable KPOP source and media. Aside from Baby Monster, Young Posse are also among those can be considered as 5th Generation KPOP. -- User: Dayville999 (User talk:) 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are these references? Also BabyMonster and Vcha don't have any hits and platinum-certified albums yet, for its members to be listed in the article one by one.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay someone just added another Generation 5 section in this article. Can we get a consensus about this? Hotwiki (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Dayville999 and @Hotwiki: these references could help to distinguish if 5th Generation really began or not:
 * https://www.hankyung.com/article/2024040370567
 * https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/07/11/entertainment/kpop/Kpop-generation-ZeroBaseOne/20230711143453411.html
 * https://www.spieltimes.com/news/when-will-k-pops-5th-generation-start-sm-entertainment-to-debut-a-new-gen-boy-group/
 * https://www.nylon.com/entertainment/k-pops-fifth-generation-is-here-what-does-that-mean 98  𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  14:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're ready to move to Gen 5, especially considering Illit's debut has been | certified platinum. Orangesclub (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not just about group's getting a certified platinum on an album but should have distinction of how a generation is different to another. And I don't see any difference(s) yet as oppose to what Korean media outlets wants to portray.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   03:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I just wanted to add the point seeing as it was mentioned above. I personally think we have moved into a new generation - it doesn't really feel right to me to group Illit/Baby Monster in with G Idle and Ateez, but I don't think there'll ever be a concrete answer.
 * Would it be better to break down the article by years then? Remove the ambiguity completely? Orangesclub (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also have same perspective but Wikipedia has its guidelines and policies that should abide. And the only thing that comes to mind is to open a discussion for this matter.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it is, for now. Years from now, there would be a better understanding if the newer groups are part of the generation V. As for splitting them in years. Imo, that could just cause some issues, as you'd be splitting the article to a dozens of sections. Hotwiki (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Question on the inclusion of Bobbalgan4 and Davichi
I noticed that in the article mentioning this is a list of female idol groups, wouldn't that discount the likes of groups like Bobbalgan4 and Davichi? Since they aren't really idols but strictly artists. Sorry if this is brought up again just wondering. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * They are/were duos. Hotwiki (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but they don't really have the same target demographics as the other groups listed here? I find it conflicting that the article mention about idols but then list otherwise. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter who is their target demographic, this is just a list of girl groups. Duos are considered groups. Hotwiki (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Then should this sentence be changed? "South Korean girl groups refer to the all-female idol groups who are part of the K-pop industry". Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to change. This is a list of girl groups which has plenty of the groups associated with K-pop. Hotwiki (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thanks for clearing this up. It makes sense now when you put it that way. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding 5th Generation
Some argue that 5th Generation has started, but plenty more think that 5th Generation arrive in 2023: thus, groups like EL7Z UP, ILLIT, BABYMONSTER, YOUNG POSSE, KISS OF LIFE, etc. would all qualify as 5th Generation girl groups. If you would like some references/proof: [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/5th-gen-k-pop-groups-123504088.html#:~:text=From%20ZEROBASEONE%20to%20Babymonster%2C%20several,vibrant%20music%20and%20quirky%20outlook. 1], 2, and 3. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources are all unreliable: first source is originated from comingsoon.net website of which is the same as how we don't use sources from Forbes per WP:FORBES then the second is a blog which is not reliable per WP:BLOGS while the third one, see WP:KO/RS.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   03:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. I did a bit more of digging around and found this NME article about ZB1, stating that they are the start of 5th Generation K-pop. Considering ZB1 debuted in the summer 2023, I think it's safe to assume that groups that debuted in the summer of 2023 and after them can be considered 5th Gen. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I will have to disagree on that. Like I've already said, this should be given more time to process. Certain websites seemed to jump on the "generation five" label for whatever reason and there seems to be a debate in other websites, about when does generation five actually starts or if if gen five already started. Hotwiki (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is obviously not a source that can be cited, but as an indication of the general sentiment I was watching this video the other day and it appears that by now even the groups themselves take it for granted that the 5th generation has started. When exactly was the cut-off point is of course something more nebulous. Ravinglogician (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Year active
@Hotwiki why put an end year to some active groups? Is there a consensus about this? (Most likely none.) Just because they haven't done any activity? I don't get the logic because If I'm a reader who knows a thing about K-pop groups and stumble upon this list, I will think the information giving here is wrong as their main page and this list is contradicting.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   01:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Because they haven't done anything in 2024, thats a simple explanation. Can you give a group activity that Mamamoo and Blackpink did in 2024, to say that they are an active group in 2024? I already looked it up. Mamamoo's last group activity was back in August 2023, it was during a concert gig. Blackpink was last seen as a group when they met King Charles III of United Kingdom in November 2023. Not even a small greeting video uploaded on their social media accounts in this year, to warrant being labeled as an active group in the present year. It is the same thing with other girl groups like Girls' Generation who haven't officially disbanded yet. Hotwiki (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too was just visiting the page and found myself idly wondering “why are Blackpink listed as 2016–2023 given they have neither disbanded nor announced a hiatus, if anything they've just renewed.” I would argue that by viewing an ending date most people would assume some official end of activities, temporary or permanent, as opposed to “it just so happens they haven't done anything so far this year”. That a lot of people don't agree with your definition is further evidenced by how frequently you appear to be reverting changes to that effect.
 * Having said that, IMHO it shouldn't be up to the editors of this list to make this call to begin with; instead I think this page should just mirror whatever each artist's own page says (assuming it's actively maintained of course), giving deference to the subject matter experts over there. As @98Tigerius says anything else results in inconsistencies, which in turn leads to confusion. Ravinglogician (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because the Wikipedia article of Blackpink states a different thing, it doesn't mean this article has to follow it though. Wikipedia articles aren't being used as a reference here. Like I've already said, unless you can provide that Blackpink actually did something as a group in year 2024, then that's the only time this article should label them as an active group in 2024. Doing otherwise is misinformation. Just because they haven't disbanded or haven't announced a hiatus, it doesn't make them an active group in the present year. Its literally the case with Girls' Generation. Hotwiki (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * May I add its also been six months, that they renewed their contract as a group. Since then, there hasn't been a seasons greetings from the group, no video uploaded on their social media accounts showcasing a group activity in 2024, no public appearance as a group anywhere, nothing in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please provide a reference a 2024 activity from Blackpink, that would make them an active group in 2024. A YG film release that was filmed from their 2023 tour is not it, unless you see the group themselves actively promoting it. Also I just came across this article. It stated they won't have group activities in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that, according to your standard of inactivity, Blackpink have not done anything as a group so far in calendar year 2024. I simply don't agree it's a good standard to begin with, for the reasons I outlined in my original comment. And clearly a lot of people don't agree with your standard judging from the fact that, by my count, you've had to enforce it 4 times in the last month alone. (And I say that with much appreciation for the thankless task you've taken upon yourself of defending this page against a lot of otherwise nonsensical drive-by edits.)
 * It's also a standard that's not enforced consistently within the page: there are probably other groups in the “since XXXX” category that haven't done much if anything in the last year or two (at least according to their main Wikipedia page), though I'm loathe to point out any one them in particular because you'll then probably go and change those too…
 * Another thing worth pointing out is that in the absence of some actual announcement to link to, I feel that you or I or anyone else going to their social media etc and ascertaining that there has been no activity effectively constitutes original research, which Wikipedia tends to frown upon. On the other hand it's completely different if there exists an outside article making that claim such as the one you provided, even from a source as disreputable as Koreaboo. So at least for me personally, if you were to add that article as a reference to the 2016–2023 annotation, I'd have no further objections.
 * Having said that, that same Koreaboo article does also claim that they're going to have an event for their anniversary, thus this whole discussion might turn out to be moot after all… Ravinglogician (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, once Blackpink have done something in 2024 as a group. Then thats the only time, in my opinion, that the group should be labeled as an active group in 2024. Blackpink group activity. Doing otherwise is a misinformation. One of its members just released a solo single the other day. Anyway there's six more months left in the year 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging you guys —, , , — to get more opinion about this dispute on idol group's year active.   98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   06:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked you before, to give a Mamamoo and Blackpink activity in 2024. You still haven't posted any 2024 activity from those groups, that would verify them as an active group in the present year. If you are contesting about this topic, then you should probably give a response when someone responded to the talk page topic you've started. Hotwiki (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * May I add, for the editors who might be just reading this talk page discussion. I think its a misinformation to add "present" in the years active table column, to girl groups that have zero group activity in the present year (2024). Its misinformation, and would also make the article seem "outdated" as the article might not be keeping on track with the listed groups' yearly activity especially when there's none to begin with - which is pretty much the case with Blackpink. I've asked and  directly about this, and both couldn't even mention a group activity for Blackpink in the present year and we already halfway in 2024 as well, so its not like this was just decided in the first month of 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping it as is for now. Unless there are reports of a hiatus, I wouldn't change it. Blackpink is known for having long periods without group activities. If it's been three or more years without any activity, then it would be appropriate to update their article to past tense. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If Blackpink does 1 activity in 2024, even if its just a small group video greeting (like Wjsn's 2024 activities), it should be changed to 2016-present. But its been six months this year, and still nothing from the group. What happens when its January 1, 2025 and still nothing? If Blackpink eventually does something, then this should be updated. Hotwiki (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also from 2016 to 2023, Blackpink have done something in each of those years even if they didn't release a new single in more than 12 months.Hotwiki (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, you asked me directly and I replied to you directly why I don't agree this is the right metric to ascertain inactivity, as did others. Yet you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and implying that everyone who disagrees with you is peddling misinformation. We're honestly just talking past each other, which is unfortunate. Ravinglogician (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay about that, I can't find anything but that doesn't mean what you imply should be followed, the WP:STATUSQUO in my opinion is WP:OR as there's no reliable source that the groups are inactive as they are.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can you explain how a girl group can be active in the present year (2024), when there's literally no activity from the group in the present year? Also as I already pointed out, just because it shows "2016-2023" in the article, its not an indication that the girl group went into a hiatus or disbanded. It just means they aren't active or haven't done anything in the present year which is true anyway. This is the same case with Girls' Generation which is listed as "2007–17, 2021–22", that girl group never disbanded and didn't announce hiatus in the past. Hotwiki (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also have given the most recent group appearance of Mamamoo (August 2023) and Blackpink (November 2023) in this talk page back on June 13, 2024. The reference for those dates are also posted here and so far, no one pointed out those are wrong, so how can it be original research, when the dates I have given are backed up with a reference. Original research is assuming that a girl group is active in 2024, when you can't even give a single activity they did in the present year that would prove that they are an active group in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also these articles exist which are related to the group's inactivity in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up Girls' Generation as an example, but in their case there's a very specific thing that happened (and was announced) in 2017: two members left the agency and the group went into an extended hiatus as a result. And even in their case, if say we were having this discussion in 2018 I would not have advocated personally for writing “2007–2017”; it's only with the benefit of hindsight that we can see that there was a multi-year hiatus, and therefore their Years Active should be written with a break in between.
 * Furthermore note that for Girls' Generation your approach is again at odds with what their main page says, which is “2007–2017, 2022–present”. Therefore bringing them up as an example doesn't really support your argument, it's more of the opposite: they too should be listed as “…–present” because no event or announcement has transpired which would suggest otherwise. Ravinglogician (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed in dispute resolution. Take it there. Hotwiki (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading through this dispute and reviewing the prior nine discussions, I have not found a WP:CONSENSUS explicitly endorsing the rationale behind the statement "because x haven't done anything in y [hence] z [is an inactive] group", made on 13 June 2024 at 05:29 UTC. Furthermore, upon examining the article's history, more than 39% of its edits were made by the proponent of the statement. Given their primary advocacy for this reasoning and substantial involvement in editing the article, their assertion should not carry significant weight in forming a CONSENSUS on this dispute. Implying inactivity without substantiating it with WP:RELIABLE SOURCEs, as required by WP:BURDEN to WP:VERIFY the rationale (i.e., the quoted statement), appears to involve WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Since there is disagreement among the parties (98Tigerius, Hotwiki, Ravinglogician) involved, seeking assistance in resolving this dispute at Dispute resolution noticeboard may be the best course of action at this stage.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity
Since the DRN has been closed by the volunteer admin, I'm opening this RfC to have a clear consensus about the matter that was discussed above. Should there be an "end date" for the groups who just don't have an activity this year even though they are still active in the industry?

Edit: Additionally, this should also apply to List of South Korean boy bands.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   07:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a 2024 activity for girl groups like Blackpink and Mamamoo, to warrant having the word "present" in their "years active" column? You seem determined to change this, but the inactivity of both groups isn't helping your argument. Also, just because a girl group didn't announce a hiatus and disbandedment, it doesn't automatically make them an "active group" especially we are already halfway in the present year (2024) and there's still zero activity from those girl groups. That was literally the case with Girls' Generation from 2018 to 2020, 2023 and 2024, who never announced a disbandment/hiatus. Hotwiki (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I am determined that's why I'm seeking consensus for this matter and by putting an end year to those active groups is purely an original research. In the case of SNSD, they were on hiatus for a couple of years and have this reliable source to back it up. And please re-read Paper9oll comment above. Also this is only about "hiatus".  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   08:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read it just fine and I still disagree. If Blackpink and Mamamoo should be labeled as "active groups" by having the word "present" in the years active column, then you should provide a reference showcasing their 2024 activity. I have asked you this before and you clearly said, you couldn't find anything they did in 2024, and this is why I simply don't agree with you. Changing it to "2016-present" and "2014-present" when both girl group are inactive in 2024, would imply the article is already outdated. Hotwiki (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source stating Mamamoo's group activity, now can you provide to us that they announced their inactivity as a group?  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think I can still do that, when you already posted a 2024 activity for Mamamoo? I directly asked you in the first place to post a 2024 activity for that group. Please avoid being sarcastic in talk pages. Hotwiki (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not being sarcastic here but just asking you too as you keep pushing me to find a reliable source for their group activity. Imo, the wrong with your arguments is that you assumed a group being inactive solely because they don't have group activity. So what's your other option for this matter?  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   11:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing "years active" as "group status". Those two are different. I already brought this up before, just because a group that doesn't have "present" in their years active column - it automatically doesn't mean the group already disbanded or in a hiatus or never coming back. They just don't have a 2024 activity (yet) to warrant that "present" word or "since 20**" in the "years active" column. Now that you have provided a 2024 Mamamoo activity which was uploaded in June 2024 based from the YouTube you shared, you don't see me arguing changing it to "2014-2023" or "2014-2024". Hotwiki (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "2014-present". Anyway, I think the users here are conflating the two, indeed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "2014–present" is shown in Mamamoo's Wikipedia article through its infobox. I don't edit that Wikipedia article. Its different here in this List of South Korean girl groups, which its "since 20**". But yeah I think people are confusing "years active" to "group status". Hotwiki (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. Anyway, Lightoil argument below seems nonsensical, as you can't prove inactivity, only activity, which in turn proves inactivity if there is no activity in a given year. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to agree with 98Tigerius on this one we should not be putting end dates due to inactivity not disbandment without sources backing it up instead we should leave it as active till something changes and not engage in original research. Activity is hard to define for example Blackpink's Lisa recently released a song and Mamamoo's members are still individually active. Lightoil (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * why are you bringing solo activities here, when we know solo activities aren't part of group activities. Lisa isn't signed as a soloist in YG Entertainment. She set up her own agency (Lloud), which is the same thing with Jennie (Odd Atelier) and Jisoo (Blissoo). YG Entertainment no longer has a say when it comes to the solo career of Lisa, Jisoo and Jennie. As for Mamamoo - Hwasa (P Nation) and Wheein (The L1ve) are signed in different agencies as well, and not Mamammo's home label (RBW). Hotwiki (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Solo activities do show that they are active so we should not be so hasty in labeling their group inactive. Furthermore, whatever agency managing their solo activities does not really matter. Lightoil (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoever said those members are inactive as a soloists? Again solo activities are excluded from group activities. Why are you counting Lisa's solo material as Blackpink's activity, especially when Lisa's latest solo release wasn't released by Blackpink's home labeL YG Entertainment. Thats like saying One Direction is still an active group because of Harry Styles' solo music. That is such weak argument from both you and . Just because certain members are still in the music industry, it doesn't mean the group they debuted, is still active. Both of you cannot give a 2024 group activity for those groups. Hotwiki (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that we should not be too hasty in labeling them as inactive as they had engaged in activities last year and instead use reliable sources that say Blackpink and Mamamoo are inactive before adding an end date. Lightoil (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blackpink and Mamamoo don't have a 2024 activity yet, which is why "present" shouldn't be included in the years active column. 2016-2023/2014-2023 are way more accurate, than "2016-present" and "2014-present" as of today. The "Years active" column is merely showing the years that these girl groups are active. You and, shouldn't see as it as an "end date", as this would be updated right away, once Blackpink/Mamamoo have done something new as a group. Plenty of record companies/agencies don't hand out press releases, when their artists enter inactivity for a period of time, which was the case with girl groups like Girls' Generation and the Spice Girls, which had/have members went on to making solo music. As for references, I have already posted here in this talk page about the most recent activity of Blackpink/Mamamoo which was in 2023. Also for Blackpink, I have already posted several articles regarding their inactivity in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, implying inactivity NOT disbandment (regardless of indicating it with "–[END YEAR]" and/or "(hiatus)" and/or any similar deviations) without supporting it with WP:RELIABLE SOURCEs from primary source (worse case scenario) or reputable secondary sources (preferred method) that explicity supported the status made is basically deliberately introducing WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, this is regardless of which subject that we are discussing on in this article, there should not be a specific rule applied just for a subset of data. I also believe that providing reliable sources from reputable sources is necessary for this article, in particularly when handling this disputed area which is believe to be controversial given the "heated" discussion above and of course spinning off to moderated DRN and back here with RfC.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) ; edited for clarity due to strawman fallacy 12:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If a girl group is "active" in the present year, why no one here can provide a 2024 group activity from Blackpink and Mamamoo? Labeling them as an active group when there's no reference that those girl groups are active in the present year is purely misinformation. You keep tossing "original research". But when I asked for references for their 2024 activities, you couldn't give any as well. What happens when those girl groups remain inactive for the rest of 2024, then 2025 and so on? Would those times be the time to remove "present" in the years active column? Blackpink and Mamamoo should have the word "present" beside their debut year, when they have done something as a group in the present year which is 2024. I'm also looking forward to January 1, 2025, to see if they were inactive the entire 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I'm responding to a RfC question not nor was my comment indented under other's editors comment ... just checked again ... yes the section was indeed correct and my initial comment to this section and its indentation was indeed correct.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The flip side is that can you prove that a group is still active? If not, then it is inactive. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValenciaThunderbolt I'm not here to debate this btw as this isn't the goal of this RfC for this article and its contents exclusively (it's in bold because your replies here suggested un-familiarization of this RfC) as I have clearly stated in earlier reply, and please get yourself familiarize on what caused this RfC itself. In short, the debate and your type of rationale argument is long over as it was clearly a stalemate and causing a circular discussion going now where hence this RfC was created hence don't ping me again here.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't PROVE inactivity, but you CAN prove activity. Its activities attest to whether they are active or not. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValenciaThunderbolt Nice try forcing me to engage by misrepresenting statements I never made. You must not make strawman fallacies about other editors' (including mine) comments, such as implying their comments are "conflat[ing inactivity with] disbandment" when they did not explicitly indicate such. I will only tolerate this incorrect behavior once; if it happens again, whether through direct or indirect replies, we will address it at the noticeboard. Regarding your statement that one can't prove inactivity but can prove activity: this presents a contradiction. It suggests that while activity can be proven based on reported occurrences, it implied that original research and speculation are acceptable in this context because proving inactivity isn't possible. Hence, I stated that maintaining "–present" is appropriate in my initial reply above. It's neutral and aligns with Wikipedia's policies on VERIFY and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, ensuring verifiability without introducing original research, thus addressing both scenarios without presenting contradiction. Your reply is optional. Should you wish to reply, please ensure that your response addresses only my comment and does not go out-of-scope to keep this discussion productive. Failure to adhere to this format will result in responses only if they are in scope, or no further responses.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with 98Tigerius, Lightoil and Paper9oll that we could be introducing original research to the articles if we just decide it's year of inactivity without any official sources or statements, although I can see where Hotwiki's point is coming from. It is a gray area as we have precedent like the Spice Girls and One Direction who just went years of hiatuses or disbandment without any official statement.
 * However, I feel it works a bit different for K-Pop as sometimes solo member's activity is also tied to the group name which makes things harder to define, as you can also argue that it's also an activity from part of the group. What about the subunits also? Where sometimes half of the group members didn't even participate as well.
 * To be on the safe side and save the troubles, let's only determine a group's inactivity from a primary and direct source (word from company or group members) or general consensus (like everyone now pretty much agree that SNSD went into hiatus and definitely is 'inactive' after 2017). In this case I think it was too early to determine that Blackpink's activity ended in 2022, and people aren't really agreeing with that yet as you can see. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox of Girls' Generation's Wikipedia Page shows "2007–2017, 2022–present". Which means the editors in that article, didn't count 2018 - the year when the subunit, Oh!GG was launched. Hotwiki (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also may I add, I don't think anyone here said, specifically ME - said Blackpink ended in 2022. They were touring in 2023 and had their most recent group appearance back in November 2023, when they met King Charles of the United Kingdom. Three of Blackpink's members are no longer signed with Yg Entertainment for solo activities. Hotwiki (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think users mix up the parametre in the infobox with activity vs duration as a group. Activity =/= end of a group. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think that's how sees it. Hotwiki (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish users see it like that. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there should be an end date or any implication of inactivity without reliable sources backing that up. Right now, the distinction is arbitrary and fueled by WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. For example, this year on July 31, 2024 Blackpink is releasing a concert film into theaters, meaning that the group is actively releasing content. All reliable sources report on this film as a girl group releasing a film, and not a group that is inactive. The user disputing this claimed that the release of film doesn't count as group activity because it was pre-filmed in 2023. However, other groups such as BTS who have been in the military since 2022 yet have released pre-recorded music and other content are labelled as currently active by Wikipedia, so there is clearly some lack of clarity on what group activity means. Therefore, rather than personal interpretations and original research to define this, it should be best to use a reliable source instead to determine group inactivity. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't entirely disagree with you, but if a group disbands, let's say, two years after their last activities, it should be stated in the infobox that there last activities were two years prior to disbanding. I wouldn't include member activities as, despite being a group while inactive, it isn't the group that is active, it is the members separately. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the Blackpink members even promoting this concert film? Just because a record label releases something from their signed artists, it doesn't mean those signed artists are active, in this case Blackpink - it just means the record label/agency has the power to release new material - in this case, a material filmed in 2023. Plenty of record labels have done this in the past. Anyway, that concert film will be out by the end of this month, so we shall see if there's going to be finally a 2024 Blackpink group appearance. Hotwiki (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox_musical_artist - the template is pretty factual "Period(s) during which the act was or has been active." If they are active as a musical act, then there should be at least one event or promotion that shows it in the article itself. I don't read this to imply the opposite here - only that there is evidence of activity in the stated years. Evaders99 (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I was ill-informed and confused about the parameter about the definition of "years active". It was not known to me that Wikipedia has that definition all along and now its making sense. I am going to agree with this parameter and say Blackpink's activity did ended on 2023 (for now). (On the other hand didn't that vlog count as an activity for Mamamoo now in 2024?)
 * And now what do we do with the inconsistency for this list and the group wiki page? Blackpink's year active is stated as present still. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mamamoo's June 2024 YouTube vlog was already brought up here, hence why its no longer "2014–23" in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I only just saw that. Thank you. Haven't been here in a while. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blackpink will have a future event as already announced by their label YG Entertainment last month (on June 21 to be exact) that they will release a concert film by the end of this month (July 31). So to say their activity ended last year is OR.   98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that film being promoted by the members, or merely a YG Entertainment release? A 2024 release (that was filmed way back in 2023) from the label doesn't automatically mean that the group is active in year 2024, especially if the group members themselves aren't doing promotional work. Hotwiki (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it was filmed last year doesn't mean it is not an activity, there's a term "pre-production" for a reason. And what you implied is a WP:SYNTH.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   18:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it a 2024 activity, when the film being sceened was filmed in 2023? Also, I already asked this several times in this talk page, are the Blackpink members doing promotional activities for this upcoming movie? Answer that please. Hotwiki (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like only you, Hotwiki and I understand the purpose of the parametre, compared to the other three, who seem to conflate disbandment and activity for the purpose of the parametre. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters that Blackpink and Mamamoo haven't released anything so far this year; as far as has been announced, they are both still groups, and speculating that they're not going to be active this year fails WP:CRYSTAL. On January 1st, 2025? Sure, you can use retrospect to say that they weren't active in 2024. But for now, we can't say anything until we have an announcement. Otherwise, are we going to change every group to "xx-2024" at the end of this year, until they one by one release music and we can swap them back to "xx-present"? Orangesclub (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be changed to "xx-2024" by the end of the year, if groups haven't done anything in 2025. It would be easily revert to "since 20xx", once groups have something else next year. Again, I'm gonna repeat myself, the main reason why Blackpink is listed with "2016-23" is because they haven't done anything as a group in the present year (2024). This could easily be changed, if they made a single appearance as a group, similar to Mamamoo. But so far, no one here could post an actual 2024 activity from Blackpink. YG Entertainment could release a dozens of things this year, things that were already filmed in the previous years, but if the members of Blackpink aren't promoting those, then they aren't really active. It just means, the label is doing the work for them. Hotwiki (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's your threshold? Two months of inactivity, we mark a group inactive? Six months? I think that's more confusing than a few select acts going on unannounced breaks. How is that not speculation? Orangesclub (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no speculation here. "Years active" should ONLY cover years when there were/are activity/ies. 2016–23 is accurate for Blackpink, as those were the years that they were active as a group. Name a 2024 activity from Blackpink which had the members participated that wasn't filmed/recorded in the previous years. Also, I don't agree that we need to wait an entire year, to decide if a group was inactive for 2024. We are in 2024, the present year. Please hand out a 2024 activity for the group in your next reply. Hotwiki (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki Blackpink recently announced an activity see this. Lightoil (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and it did mention "The event is the first full-group activity since the four members were awarded honorary medals from Britain’s King Charles in November last year". The bolded part is I what mentioned several times in this talk page. But thanks for the heads up about their first 2024 full-group activity! Ddd Hotwiki (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gap Year method

 * A good compromise might be a "gap year". For example, let's say a group has been inactive since 2022, and they year we're in is 2024. The best thing to do in that scenario is to list the last year as 2022. I wouldn't advertise stating "2023", as we don't know what will happen between now and the end of the year. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right there should WP:DUE weight not just on one's own opinion and synthesizing it. Most editors are giving Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to Hotwiki but he seems ignoring it.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   10:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So... you agree to my suggestion? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring anything. I asked you if Blackpink members are promoting the concert film to be released this month. And you still haven't answered that. Hotwiki (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your proposal; it seems fair to wait a year before declaring them inactive. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That proposal is only applicable to Girls' Generation. Like I said, I really don't agree waiting a whole year to remove the "present" in the years column. The fact that we are in July 2024, and no one here could provide a 2024 activity for Blackpink, which we can visibly see the members doing something as a group, doesn't apply well to "Period(s) during which the act was or has been active." as seen in this link. Hotwiki (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Debut and Disbandment" method
This proposal replaces the current "Year actives" method with "Debut and disbandment" method by ensuring the information:
 * 1) presented is clear, factual, and straightforward.
 * 2) is based on what is explicitly supported by reliable sources for each event (debut and disbandment).
 * 3) is not speculating or assuming on the group's activity status hence avoiding any form of original research not explicitly supported by reliable sources.
 * 4) ensures a neutral presentation, avoiding bias or editorializing that could arise from different interpretation of activity status.

In summary, this method is focused on presenting verifiable facts about when a group was formed and when they officially disbanded, aligning with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research, no speculation, and neutrality.

It aims to resolve ongoing disputes by eliminating the need to determine the active or inactive status of groups (note: "inactive" here does not imply "disbandment"; "disbandment" in this proposal refers specifically to a full breakup).

Hence, below are two examples. The column titled "Platinum-certified albums" was observed in the article but was not included in the proposal for simplicity and to avoid cluttering the examples provided. This should not be interpreted as a suggestion for removing the column; if this column exists in the article, it should be retained.

 — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) ; added "sortable" into the proposal 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey
Please WP:NOTVOTE below by responding with just Support or Oppose. Your discussion must not be placed here.

Option 1

Option 2

Both options


 * Support: as the article page will "..represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.." (WP:WEIGHT).  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Both options are fine with me as by removing the inactively in would no longer be based on personal preference just reliable sources which is a better system. Lightoil (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: both options work with me provided everything is referenced and we aren't speculating. Also (and sorry to muddy this with an additional suggestion) I think it'd be great for the table to be sortable because if we're already splitting it into generations I'd like the option to sort by debut year. Orangesclub (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Both options are good, as it removes the need for personal interpretation and instead only depends on reliably sourced information. And I agree with the previous suggestion, it would be great to be able to sort by years as well.Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither options

Discussion
Responses should be civil and concise, focusing on the rationale of this method and the options presented. This ensures the discussion remains productive and prevents circular arguments. Your WP:NOTVOTE must not be placed here.

Oppose There is really no need to add extra column for "debut" and "disbandment". Especially that's just gonna be blank for active groups like Twice, Red Velvet and numerous "gen 4" girl groups. There's also no need to remove "platinum certified albums" as those are well sourced. In fact, they also occupy less space compare to "notable singles", so I don't see how those are being seen as "clutter". Hotwiki (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hotwiki Regarding "Platinum certified albums", I already addressed this in the rationale above, stating that it "was not included in the proposal for simplicity and to avoid cluttering the examples provided. This should not be interpreted as a suggestion for removing the column; if this column exists in the article, it should be retained". I'm unsure why you're suggesting that I implied removal or are discussing such. This raises the question of whether you read the entire rationale before commenting and voting, as your response seems to have been made hastily without full consideration of the context, which can lead to unproductive discussion. Additionally, you voted in the wrong section, despite clear labeling indicating where voting and discussion should occur – please correct this. Therefore, could you please confirm your understanding of why I suggested this method? It's crucial for ensuring clarity on the proposal's objectives and to ensure that we are on the same page, particularly since this discussion has been ongoing for over a month.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orangesclub Making it WP:SORTABLE could be considered however I won't include it for now as the main focus is to resolve the ongoing disputes that has lasted for over a month.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Orangesclub @Flabshoe1 Given the suggestions to make the proposal also be WP:SORTABLE, I had proceed to update the proposal.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)