Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Exo/Archive 1

Removed some awards
Per previous consensus, I removed awards issued by websites like Allkpop, as well as fan-run awards. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this page a joke?
I was researching the Seoul International Youth Film Festival and saw that your reference for EXO members winning 2 awards there was just an article about the nominees for those awards. I couldn't find one reference that said they actually won. I edited the awards to "nominated" and asked for a reference but my edit was reverted without reason back to the "won" status. So I'm really wondering how many of these "wins" are even real. Please prove me wrong about this and put in a proper reference. (Vlewitus (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes this page is a joke, half the references come from allkpop which is not an acceptable source, and many of the awards are simply online votes from websites trying to generate traffic from the groups fans.  The fans then make accounts here and list every single one of those awards because they think this is wikia. They will never respond in talk...ever. Peachywink (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but I think you should do better research then. D.O and Chen indeed won awards from SIYFF. Those were POPULARITY awards based on FANVOTES. And @Peachywink: this page DOES NOT include poll awards(like allkpop, Soompi etc) we removed those long time ago. We only include awards from Official Award shows. And I see someone deleted a lot of awards, like the GDA,MAMA etc ones? What for? I would appreciate it if, whoever deleted all these awards, put the page back to how it was. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:464:A400:C121:D2E2:9840:1A6F (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's so easy to find then why don't you put an actual reference saying they won? It hurts the reliability of the page when you don't include legitimate references. Vlewitus (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi 2A02:A03F:464:A400:C121:D2E2:9840:1A6Ftalk I actually know what happened to those awards even though I was in no way involved in the deletion. I know because I have seen it happen before.   First the editor who removed them will not be putting it back since it is not their job. They are an editor appointed to a position where basicly they go around and look at randomly assigned articles, if any of the information in the article is missing references they delete it.  That's all they do, it's meant to spur people on the page to fix the references they have been putting off obtaining.  When this happened to a page I cared about I quickly had to find appropriate references and re-add the awards. But I do not have the same level of investment for this group.  However here is some helpful tips for whoever chooses to spend the half hour or so needed to fix this properly:  re-adding is easy and you just need one references for each year for each award show, not one for each individual award.  No one will be checking if the reference shows notability yet so you just need an article to show that they received the awards.  While normally allkpop and soompi are not allowed as references in the case of proving someone attended or received an award they are.  Fan-sites however are still not okay references. I hope this might help someone.Peachywink (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, allkpop.com isn't an acceptable reference for anything. It's about to be added to the site blacklist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? There was some disscussion on WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources talk page a bit ago about how it should be counted in certain instances but I'm not sure if consensus was ever reached. You're most likely right, and besides if a person searches hard enough they can find reliable sites that mention the awards. BTW for anyone here that wants to do that WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources is a great page that can help you find possible sources to go and check.  Peachywink (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Exo. 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/20150504102323/http://mama.interest.me/2014mama/winners to http://mama.interest.me/2014mama/winners
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150517011442/http://www.mb.com.ph/2014-korean-popular-culture-and-arts-awards-recipients-revealed/ to http://www.mb.com.ph/2014-korean-popular-culture-and-arts-awards-recipients-revealed/

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) 11:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Exo-K wins on Music Bank
Are there any sources which confirms that "Overdose" officially won on Music Bank on May 16 & May 23, 2014? On official website chart ranking, it skips from April 11 directly to May 30 due to ferry sinking. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember Music Bank released the official ranking on the website and Exo was #1 however I'm not invested enough in the group to look up for a source. I don't even think there is a reliable source because everything back then was about the ferry disaster. I would suggest to remove it.--Thebestwinter (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

daf BAMA Music Awards
Those German-based "awards" are not notable, there is very limited info available on the web about them, and also, there area no criterias or anything about how the artists were selected. There are a lot of rumours, like there or there, that those awards are fake, created by a very suspicious and amateur company which even people in Germany havent heard of; furthermore, the artists themself (or better say, their entertainment companies) were not even informed about those awards, so why exactly should those awards be listed here? Just look at the nominations list, they have basically nominated several dozens random artists from all over the world, with one single purpose – generate the bandwidth traffic from voting = loads of money. If you want to add those awards back, than add some very reliable sources (not some wordpress links or some obscure news site from Ghana with questionable notability), preferably in Korean, or even better, a source when S.M. Enterteinemnt made any announcement about this "award". The other very similar awards with questionable reputation are the "Big Apple Music Awards", which operates in a very similar way, i.e. "We'll randomly nominate a popular Korean groups because there are huge number of K-Pop fans, which are idiotic enough to vote 1,000 times each for every little non-notable crap (epscially teen girls of boy bands), and we'll made a bunch of money from it". So why should those awards be listed there? Even Soompi Awards are more reliable, legit and notable than this, srsly. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither the fact that they are German, that they are relatively unknown to you nor that there are "rumours" of them being fake among disgruntled kpop fans should have any weight in deciding if they are worth recognising here. They are arguably more significant than most of the awards in the "other awards" section. Please do not attempt to delete them again without a sufficient reason. The fact that you do not like them is not a reason. NicklausAU (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The awards needs to meet notability criterias to be listed here or on ANY other article about rewards, the criterias was set years ago (here), and I will delete them again unless you will provide a reliable Korean source about how they recognized this award and thanked the fans for it (like they do it for every other award), those awards have no value of any kind, you need some kind of competence to run a musical awards, you cant simply establish a company and host some kind of random awards without any criterias and without even informing the artists that they are nominated. I have a "sufficient reason" to delete them, but you didnt provided anything that would make those awards notable, so you are the one who should not attempt to add them back unless the notability criterias are met. Snowflake91  (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now after even more research, I noticed that the only sources about Exo winning this award are those two Ghanaian websites (not very reliable) which are already in the article, and unreliable sites like kstarlive.com. Googling "Daf Bama Music Awards 2017 Exo under news section gives only two pages of results, and 5-6 of those results are from Wow Keren, which is basically Indonesian (not sure) version of Allkpop in terms of reliability. Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes, someone has mentioned that "The best way to tell if an award is notable is if the award is followed by major reliable secondary sources", and I cant see any "major reliable sources" covering this so-called awards (web polls for money income, but okay), so I am removing them tomorrow if you wont provide more reliable sources.  Snowflake91  (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture
I don't know how to do it myself so I want to ask here: Can someone change the picture to one with all 9 member? JET 20 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead
Hey Snowflake91, I see what you mean about starting it like List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, as her's was one of the article I based the lead off of, but I believe naming the members is still the convention in feature lists about groups/bands. See similar articles for artists such as Arctic Monkeys, Nickleback, Pearl Jam and Powderfinger. What do you think? Nicklaus AU  10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the lead section should not start with the name of the members, this could be mentioned in the second sentence, in the first sentence it should be a music genre + location, like "This is a comprehensive listing of awards won by Powderfinger, an alternative rock band who were based in Brisbane, Australia." Snowflake91  (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Daesang
To whoever keeps doing it with an IP account, please stop altering the total number of daesangs in the lead. Twitter is not a reliable source for this. Please find an article from a reputable news source if you wish to continue adding this information. Use this list as a guide for what is and is not a reliable source. Nicklaus AU  04:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I haven't updated the infobox since my last cleanup of this article, but now with the music awards material gone, should we revert the infobox back to a standard template one? Not the K-pop artist awards infobox template? An if we are going to continue using "korean" and "international" sections, should the infobox split up the list accordingly? I have zero experience with templates and infoboxes so looking for others' opinions. Nicklaus AU  10:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there should not be a split between KR and international awards at all, for example Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga does not have "US Awards" and "International awards" sections as well, neither does any other article. Are there any other difference between and  despite music programs?  Snowflake91  (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree about the split not being needed. It seems to be something only done in a select few kpop artists' awards articles. I actually missed it being done on this one. I'm happy to make the change back myself if there are no objections to it. And no I don't believe there is a difference between the infoboxes. However, do you think it would matter in an eventual peer review + FL nomination process? Now that I don't have to cite all the music shows, I'm more motivated to move back towards that goal.  Nicklaus AU   13:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Infobox template difference is a super minor thing, it wont matter at all in any FL nomination. And check the years if they are correct – the year column should be the year in which Exo received the award, not the calendar year that the award covers. Snowflake91  (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you get a chance Snowflake91, once the infobox is fixed and I've finished filling in missing parameters like authors' names on references, do you think this article is getting anywhere close to FL standard? If not, what are the areas that you feel need the most improvement?   Nicklaus AU   13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead section would need a minor tweaks, the article should not start with "This is a list of notable awards and nominations received by Exo, a South Korean–Chinese boy band based in Seoul, South Korea". Snowflake91  (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Growl", a single on the album, won Song of the Year at the 2013 Melon Music Awards and Exo won the Daesang award at the 2014 Seoul Music Awards." --> this sentence looks weird to me, it should be somehow reworded, "Growl" 2013 SOTY award at the 2013 MMA is not connected to the 2014 SMA, should be separated by the semicolon or something. Snowflake91  (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hello CookyMooky! Just about the recent edits, the MBC Show Champion "Champion Song" award is not their regular weekly music award, hence the discussion regarding music program awards does not apply. There are no music program awards on this list. It is their yearly overall award. It was reported by reliable sources in the SK media, so I am yet to see a reason for why it would be not notable. Am more than happy to discuss further. Nicklaus AU  01:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone!! i am new here and still learning about things!! Yeh about removing that i am really sorry i got a bit confused with MB and music bank!! MBC entertainment awards are totally notable, But for MBC show champion awards, i still feel it shouldn't be recorded.When i read about this ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Are_music_show_wins_notable? and in that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explicit/Music_show_awards#Alternative_2_(785_characters,_380_text) wiki page was made, in which it said not to be included.....If i am wrong again then i will be more than happy to learn few new things again....and u can remove that edit i made!! CookyMooky


 * Hi Welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your adherence to the consensus regarding music show wins, but I would counter your point with the fact that the "Champion Song" award is not a regular music show award. Yes, it is given by a music program, but it is not a regular weekly music show award. It's an annual award they only gave to one group for the whole year, and was covered by multiple reliable media outlets.  Nicklaus AU   00:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite corrections you made
regarding your corrections to an edit I did on this page last night: -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I left the blank citation format as a guide for NicklausAU who nominated the page for FL status so that when making changes according to my notes from the review page (which is what he usually does) he'd only have to fill in the required info according to how the rest of the citations have been reformatted for consistency.
 * I didn't use the 'script-title' parameter because prior to my editing the page it had been used in only a few places with no 'trans-title's provided for the Korean text either (or japanese or Chinese) so for consistency I didn't replace all the 'title' params even though I considered it. Should I change all similar refs to 'script-title' then?
 * I did not know (didn't bother to look) that this list is an FL candidate. My experience with cs1|2 templates that have unfilled parameters is that they stay unfilled and are just so much clutter.  And, an empty citation template shows as an error message.  Looking at it now, doesn't the  template for that particular table entry belong inside the  template?.
 * The template can be handy when cleaning up cs1|2 templates.  It won't find stuff like this; there is a via parameter; don't include extraneous text in parameters that are made part of the cs1|2 metadata (template documentation).
 * You might want to include or  to enforce the ymd date format for publication, archive, and access dates in the cs1|2 templates.
 * I believe that all non-Latin script titles in cs1|2 templates should use script-title (or script-chapter – or aliases – as appropriate). That parameter adds html markup that may aid browsers and / or screen-readers to properly render or speak the title.  Since FL and FA are supposed to be our 'best' work, using script-title when it is available and appropriate is important.
 * A forewarning: There are a couple of rfcs at WT:CS1 that are holding things up, but, eventually the Module:Citation/CS1 suite will be updated and as part of that all of the periodical templates will require a periodical parameter (journal, magazine, newspaper, website, work); italic and bold markup in any of these parameters and publisher will also cause error messages
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did leave a note in my edit summary as to why there was a blank ref so users would be aware of the reason for that particular error but I guess not everyone would check there. I'll change 'title' to 'script-title' accordingly. I was unsure before as I mentioned above but your clarification was very helpful. I was editing very late into the morning so the 'via' mistake happened. I haven't finished the cleanup so hopefully I'll catch anything else, and thank you for your advice. May I come to you again if I have any other questions in the process? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ask anything you'd like.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed everything (including the things you pointed out). Regarding the date templates you mentioned, do I just copy the particular template with the format I want to the top of the page above the infobox and hit save? Or is there some additional info I need to include? Also, the ref info box shows there are 4 mdy dates, is there an easy way to find exactly where they are? I've been sitting in front of my pc for way too long, everything looks the same at this point. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the source editor, not ve or its derivative the 2017 editor, choose the Advanced menu. At the far right is a quizzing glass.  Click that.  Put this text in the 'Search for' box:
 * check the 'Treat search string as a regular expression' box. Click 'Find next'
 * Yep, just add the template of your choice to the top of the page.  Module:Citation/CS1 will read the page when it is processed (when you click 'Publish changes') and render the cs1|2 dates according to that template.  As written above, all cs1|2 templates will render dates as YYYY-MM-DD regardless of how they are written in the template unless overridden by df.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am unable to access advanced settings, the option is greyed out for me on the page settings drop down menu. Is this available only to certain types of users or something? Also, I tried testing a date template last night (use mdy dates|date=July 2019|cs1-dates=y) but nothing looked any different after I hit save, so I've clearly misunderstood what I read on the template page/your reply. Unsure if it should be 'use mdy dates|date=July 2019|cs1-dates=y' (what I understood from the template page) or 'use mdy dates|date=July 2019|2=cs1-dates=y' (your reply), or if I should have excluded some part of what I wrote there for it to render properly? Forgive me if I sound stupid, but I've never used templates before so it's very confusing even though it seems pretty straightforward. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the four mdy dates:
 * 31. January 16, 2014
 * 63. November 19, 2018
 * 82. December 24, 2015
 * 163. February 28, 2019
 * Click the above links to see the citations. Notice that the date value for each is rendered in mdy format.  Before you change them, add   (just as displayed in this view) to the article and click Show preview.  Go look at citations 31, 63, 82, and 163; they should all have been rendered as ymd dates (they do for me).
 * For the editor, perhaps at Special:Preferences you have to check 'Enable the editing toolbar' under the Editor heading. Its the only editor that I use because I think that ve and the 2017 derivative are abominations that should go away forever.  But that's me, others, I guess, like them.  You probably don't need to bother now that I've given you links to the four offending templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for linking them, can't believe I missed such obvious disparities. Even with the template | everything still displays the same as yesterday to me. Idk what gives, but once the change is visible to readers/other users it should be fine for me to go ahead and apply the template right? (or should I still manually change the specified citations?) Plus I can check back with you if any issue arises afterwards. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if what you are seeing is an artifact of the 2017 editor (because it's a derivative of that abomination ve). ve uses some sort of other renderer to render its preview so Module:Citation/CS1 can't read the actual page source as it does when MediaWiki renders the page for the source editor preview and for final publication.  How about this?  Look at citations 31, 63, 82, and 163 using this older version (the one you created before you decided that  didn't work).  These citations, for me, show ymd dates.
 * The purpose of having Module:Citation/CS1 use the was to make it so that editors do not have to fiddle with every date in every citation.  Who cares what format the dates have in the source so long as they all render the same way for the reader? (it does actually matter for y because MOS:DATES doesn't allow the translation of Month YYYY dates to YYYY-MM)
 * I did say that you can ask anything you'd like. I didn't put any constraints on that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * in that version, the dates all show yyyy-mm-dd just fine so irdk what the heck happened between then and now. Just applied the template. Please check and tell me if all is kosher now! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for linking them, can't believe I missed such obvious disparities. Even with the template | everything still displays the same as yesterday to me. Idk what gives, but once the change is visible to readers/other users it should be fine for me to go ahead and apply the template right? (or should I still manually change the specified citations?) Plus I can check back with you if any issue arises afterwards. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if what you are seeing is an artifact of the 2017 editor (because it's a derivative of that abomination ve). ve uses some sort of other renderer to render its preview so Module:Citation/CS1 can't read the actual page source as it does when MediaWiki renders the page for the source editor preview and for final publication.  How about this?  Look at citations 31, 63, 82, and 163 using this older version (the one you created before you decided that  didn't work).  These citations, for me, show ymd dates.
 * The purpose of having Module:Citation/CS1 use the was to make it so that editors do not have to fiddle with every date in every citation.  Who cares what format the dates have in the source so long as they all render the same way for the reader? (it does actually matter for y because MOS:DATES doesn't allow the translation of Month YYYY dates to YYYY-MM)
 * I did say that you can ask anything you'd like. I didn't put any constraints on that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * in that version, the dates all show yyyy-mm-dd just fine so irdk what the heck happened between then and now. Just applied the template. Please check and tell me if all is kosher now! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * in that version, the dates all show yyyy-mm-dd just fine so irdk what the heck happened between then and now. Just applied the template. Please check and tell me if all is kosher now! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for FEATURED LIST
Hello NicklausAU I saw your message at BTS - awards and nomination DRAFT PAGE, where I am also working with other authors to make that page pass FL nomination!! I was just going through this page sources and found that for "V live awards" you have used sources from V LIVE SITE, which is not to be used as its not considered desirable. So I suggest you to take a look at the sources other than from V LIVE PAGE to be on the safer site to see if this award got any coverage other than V LIVE OFFICIAL SITE and then only added them (same was done for BTS page) which will help this article to pass much more easily!! I hope this suggestion is helpful!! CookyMooky — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMooky (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)