Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch/Archive 2

Lede Section, again
User:CherryPie94, User:Lizzydarcy2008 - Please provide your proposed second paragraphs for the lede, for the revised RFC.

Both of you are personalizing the discussion too much. Do I need to post a request at WP:AN for administrative attention? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94's proposed second paragraphs
Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget, the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks, with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas. On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to several factors such as competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.

It is the same as the current one on the page except for the sentence in red. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008's proposed second paragraphs
One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and budget, the series premiered with the highest Friday-Saturday drama ratings for SBS in 2020. While several factors including the rise of streaming platforms, controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes, it was the most-watched title on Netflix in several countries and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks after its first airing. . Its international success was one of the reasons cited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company, Studio Dragon.

Please see Threaded Discussion below for the differences between the current second paragraph and this proposed version Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Reception section
Should the Reception section be replaced with either of the following sections?

A. See User:CherryPie94/sandbox.

B. See User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox.

Please !vote in the Survey section as A or B or Unchanged. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. Any replies can go in the Threaded Discussion. (This will make it easier for the closer to assess consensus.) The two editors who are having the dispute should make their statements in Statements by Proponents. Do not reply to those statements. You may reply to them in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94
Just wanted to say that my suggested edit doesn't include any new text that is not already in the page. I just re-arranged paragraphs and added section headers. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, I included it in my suggested edit and marked it red so that you could differentiate text already on the page and new text not on the page. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008
The main differences between this and the current page are:

1. This section is subdivided into Cultural Performance, Critical Response, Cultural Disputes and Advisory Warnings

2. The section entitled "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warnings" is separated into "Cultural Disputes" and "Advisory Warnings" placed under the Reception section. It will be noted that WP:SECTION advises against using words with negative connotation for titles. "Inaccuracy" has a negative connotation. In addition, this is a fantasy drama, so talking about historical inaccuracies is incongruous.

3. This removes repetitious information to reduce sloppiness. For example, why say, the series started with a rating of 11.4%, went down to 5.2% then hovered around 6-8%, when everyone can see all the rating numbers in the Ratings section?

Please see my responses to CherryPie's notes in Threaded Discussion below. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk)

Survey

 * A. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A. Not going to bother reading the wall of text, but based on my perception of each user's sandbox, option A seems most neutral to me. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A. Apt and neutral.Revolutionery (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A. Nangears (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Lizzydarcy2008's suggestion has lots of new text that is questionable: 1. "However, competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms led to lower domestic TV ratings in later episodes." none of the 5 sources says anything about competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve. God know where the "competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve" statement came from. The sources all talked about the ratings going lower, but none claimed that Netflix and Wavve were the cause.This is a case of combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
 * Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, I included it in my suggested edit and marked it red so that you could differentiate text already on the page and new text not on the page. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

2. "The series achieved international success on Netflix. Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol 37 of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE) showed the series in 9th place in Netflix World Ranking chart, the only Korean drama in the Top 10 list. The magazine also reported that the series "swept traffic in the densely populated Southeast Asian region - Hong Kong, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, (as well as) Nigeria, etc. It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. You can go in the page's history and see that lots of users removed those statements before saying the website is unreliable. None of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. Maybe a bigger discussion about Netflix daily top 10 chart reliability should be started in the Reliable sources Noticeboard if you still want to include such info. 3. ''"The discrepancy between the domestic TV ratings and the success of the series in the streaming platforms led The Korea Times to conclude, "local viewership is no longer a key metric."[12] Drama critic Eun Goo-seul said, "Nielsen Korea or TNMS’s audience rating method is a method of analyzing data from a sample group where audience rating survey devices are installed, and OTT ratings are excluded. If these ratings do not reflect the changes in the times, the criteria for determining advertisers who used ratings as a barometer for posting ads will inevitably change." Not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series. Seems like Lizzydarcy2008 is trying to justify the low ratings by adding unrelated things. Let the facts speak for themselves and don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 4. "According to International Business Times, "The K-Drama The King: Eternal Monarch starring Lee Min Ho and Kim Go Eun has reached another milestone. The drama is one of the most watched series among all the shows on Netflix. Here are the details of how much the K-drama was liked by the international audience. Currently, The King: Eternal Monarch occupies the first place among most watched Korean dramas on Netflix."'' This is per flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. Also I just checked, The King: Eternal Monarch is no longer #1 per flixpetrol, showing how unreliable that website is. 5. "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," is this Lizzydarcy2008's opinion again and is backed by no source. The is a clear attempt to dismiss any negative comments about the series. 6. "surmised" this is against WP:SAID. I already removed it from the page weeks ago and informed Lizzydarcy2008 about it. But she keeps adding it to dismiss any negative comments. 7. I'd say having it as "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is much better than "Cultural Disputes" as it explains the content. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

LizzyDarcy's responses to CherryPie's notes
1. "However, competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms led to lower domestic TV ratings in later episodes." none of the 5 sources says anything about competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve. God know where the "competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve" statement came from. The sources all talked about the ratings going lower, but none claimed that Netflix and Wavve were the cause.This is a case of combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

According to Korea Times, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms". (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html)

2. "The series achieved international success on Netflix. Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol 37 of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE) showed the series in 9th place in Netflix World Ranking chart, the only Korean drama in the Top 10 list. The magazine also reported that the series "swept traffic in the densely populated Southeast Asian region - Hong Kong, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, (as well as) Nigeria, etc. It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. You can go in the page's history and see that lots of users removed those statements before saying the website is unreliable. None of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. Maybe a bigger discussion about Netflix daily top 10 chart reliability should be started in the Reliable sources Noticeboard if you still want to include such info.

Please show proof that Hallyu magazine data came from FlixPatrol and not directly from Netflix. The magazine mentions, "It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Flixpatrol, which is missing a lot of data about this drama, does not show this drama at the top of the Dominican Republic. It could only mean the magazine got its data directly from Netflix. Also, it is known that the ranking will change over time, that is the nature of ranking. This is why I always mention the volume number of the magazine. As of Vol.37 of this magazine released in July 2020, the drama was #9 worldwide. That would never change. This is like saying Gone With The Wind was the top-grossing film in 1939. It is not #1 anymore, but saying it was #1 in 1939 will always be true.

3. "The discrepancy between the domestic TV ratings and the success of the series in the streaming platforms led The Korea Times to conclude, "local viewership is no longer a key metric."[12] Drama critic Eun Goo-seul said, "Nielsen Korea or TNMS’s audience rating method is a method of analyzing data from a sample group where audience rating survey devices are installed, and OTT ratings are excluded. If these ratings do not reflect the changes in the times, the criteria for determining advertisers who used ratings as a barometer for posting ads will inevitably change." Not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series. Seems like Lizzydarcy2008 is trying to justify the low ratings by adding unrelated things. Let the facts speak for themselves and don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

You might want to look at yourself in the mirror when you say, "let the facts speak for themselves". You've been repeatedly pointing out the ratings, even repeating in narrative form what the Ratings table already tells readers instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. So, you can ram the low ratings down readers' throats but not allow an explanation of what caused them? Yet, what was that you put on the page of It's Okay To Not Be Okay to explain its ratings that are lower than that of The King Eternal Monarch? "This series aired on tvN, a cable channel/pay TV, which normally has a relatively smaller audience compared to free-to-air TV/public broadcasters (KBS, SBS, MBC and EBS)." And what do you know, the page of It's Okay To Not Be Okay, another highly anticipated series, that has more than 15,000 characters, thus requiring a second paragraph, does not have one talking about its lower-than-expected ratings and yet you clearly had time to add two more graphs showing the ratings of The King Eternal Monarch. Hmm... with all the accusations you've thrown at me throughout these discussions - an obsessed fan, making excuses for the series - I can't help but wonder whether you have been accusing me of what you are. I did hear about how competitive fans of the lead of It's Okay To Not Be Okay are towards the lead of The King Eternal Monarch. You should be thankful I'm not the obsessive fan you've been accusing me of, or you'll be up to your neck removing negative remarks from the page of your idol's series, as you've been smearing this series.

4. "According to International Business Times, "The K-Drama The King: Eternal Monarch starring Lee Min Ho and Kim Go Eun has reached another milestone. The drama is one of the most watched series among all the shows on Netflix. Here are the details of how much the K-drama was liked by the international audience. Currently, The King: Eternal Monarch occupies the first place among most watched Korean dramas on Netflix." This is per flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. Also I just checked, The King: Eternal Monarch is no longer #1 per flixpetrol, showing how unreliable that website is.

That had been replaced with another article.

5. "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," is this Lizzydarcy2008's opinion again and is backed by no source. The is a clear attempt to dismiss any negative comments about the series.

Please see #1. It is well-sourced and it's called deductive reasoning. These criticisms were lobbied at the drama before it was known that the low ratings were mainly caused by Netflix. Note what the International Business Times said, "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings". These are false, thus proven to be mere speculations not statements of fact because it was found out that the main reason the series failed to increase its ratings was Netflix.

6. "International Business Times surmised" this is against WP:SAID. I already removed it from the page weeks ago and informed Lizzydarcy2008 about it. But she keeps adding it to dismiss any negative comments.

See #5. Saying "surmised" is more appropriate than saying "stated" because it is speculation. It is not to avoid saying negative remarks. It is about using appropriate words. I'm sure I have pointed this out several times before.

7. I'd say having it as "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is much better than "Cultural Disputes" as it explains the content

The title "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is awkward and sloppy. What are you referring to as "stock images"? "Cultural Disputes" is more descriptive of what the whole section is about, not to mention being far from sloppy. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. After you provided your source, I did amend that sentence in my sandbox. 2. The King is no longer the #1 k-series of 2020 on Netflix or #9 per flixpetrol. Netflix usually release it at the end of the year, see last years, it was reported on January 2020 not mid year. At the end of the year, if it really made the list, I would personally add it. But for now what I'm saying is that such changing charts/lists are not added to Wikipedia as they are insignificant and changes daily. Always, Global Hallyu got their info from flixpetrol (see screenshot), which is unreliable. I also asked here and here, and was told Netflix chart should not be used. 3. The statement is not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series, so it should not be added. 4. This is the 3 time you used a Korean source that you can't read and copy-paste text from Google Translate. Your sentence make no sense. What is "I've Goed Once?" The article says, "SBS's "The King: The King of Eternity," which finished airing this year, and KBS's recent weekend drama "Once Again," are also some of the representative works of Studio Dragon." The sentence is of no significance, what should the read understand from that? Also, this google translate sentence, "It is thanks to players like Studio Dragon that it was possible to produce a masterpiece drama targeting the global market" is not even talking about The King. 5. I see no point in adding "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," as that is not stated in any source and is your words. No source said that it was criticized because people did not know "the effect of Netflix and Wavve". Plus, I moved all mention of the ratings to the viewership section in my sandbox, so there is no need for it to be before the criticism to invalidate it. 6. Read WP:SAID. Surmise is one of the words to avoid. 7. The architecture and the warships are all stock images, read the section. Also, although Koreaboo is unreliable, they even labeled it as historical inaccuracy here. Article #1 and Article #2 also refer to it as historical details. I have never seen it being called "Cultural dispute" which makes no sense if you read the title and the actual section. You said above that " WP:SECTION advises against using words with negative connotation for titles." I can't seem to find that one the page, those are the section title guidelines MOS:SECTIONS. Also see Mel Gibson, Game of Thrones and Game of Thrones, all have negative connotation. When you read "Alcohol abuse and legal issues" you instantly know what the section is talking about, but with "Cultural dispute" it makes no sense.


 * "Awkward and sloppy" are not an excuse on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you use guidelines instead of repeating those words, it would really not help your cause at all. Also, I don't know why you are stalking my edit history page and bringing up other pages, but I did not add "This series aired on tvN, a cable channel/pay TV, which normally has a relatively smaller audience compared to free-to-air TV/public broadcasters (KBS, SBS, MBC and EBS)" in It's Okay To Not Be Okay page, it was already on the page and I just moved it from under the table to above the table to keep text all together, you can go check. I only went to that page because another user asked me for help. Also, please read Harassment (Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia), your statement "You should be thankful I'm not the obsessive fan you've been accusing me of, or you'll be up to your neck removing negative remarks from the page of your idol's series, as you've been smearing this series" is a threat and could cause you to be blocked as editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Your sentence is still wrong because it still gives credence to speculation. What International Business Times surmised as the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings have been proven wrong by the finding that the rise of streaming services largely caused the low ratings.
 * 2. How many times do I need to repeat this: rankings change - that's the nature of rankings. So when you cite rankings, you specify the time period the rankings were valid. For example, saying Gone with The Wind is #1 is not true in 2020, so you have to specify that Gone With The Wind was #1 in 1939. This will always be true. The same with my statement. The King Eternal Monarch is not anymore #9 worldwide today. But it was, in July 2020, when vol.37 of Global Hallyu Issue magazine was published. Even the article you referenced also shows top 10 lists.
 * 3. That sentence explains why "local viewership is no longer a key metric". I wonder who is harassing and stalking who. I noticed that the references I cited in my previous arguments have been updated. Mr. Sunshine has now something negative in its second paragraph while It's Okay To Not be Okay has now rating numbers outside the Ratings table, both obviously added to invalidate my arguments. So you admit that what you have been doing with The King Eternal Monarch is wrong, since you consider somebody doing the same thing with It's Okay To Not be Okay a threat. You have the gall to mention harassment to me whom you actually harassed with your sock-puppetry and edit-war complaints after I reverted a change you did during a dispute.
 * 4. It's Google translate. Another translation of that sentence is, "Studio Dragon has been able to build up its size by acquiring a production company & made it possible to produce masterpieces aimed at the global market. SBS' "The King Eternal Monarch" and KBS' "Once Again"'are representative works. That's significant.
 * 5. That's based on sources and deductive reasoning. IBTimes made the speculation before the findings that the rise in streaming platforms largely caused the low ratings.
 * 6. Read WP:SAID carefully. It said be cautious about using these words - you have to make sure it is appropriate. And in this case, it is appropriate. The fact that there is a more significant reason for the low ratings means IBTImes was speculating, i.e. surmising.
 * 7. You yourself said Koreaboo is unrealiable, why use their term? This is yet another one of their unreliable statements. The issues with the temple, crown and robe not looking Korean enough as well as the Japanese warship looking Korean were all about the cultural representation of the objects. This is why they consulted a cultural critic. How does the term "Stock images" apply to the crown and robe? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7. You yourself said Koreaboo is unrealiable, why use their term? This is yet another one of their unreliable statements. The issues with the temple, crown and robe not looking Korean enough as well as the Japanese warship looking Korean were all about the cultural representation of the objects. This is why they consulted a cultural critic. How does the term "Stock images" apply to the crown and robe? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Second Paragraph of Lede
Which paragraph should be used as the second paragraph of the lede section? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Specify 'A' or 'B' in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Threaded Discussion is for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A
Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget, the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks, with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas. On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to several factors such as competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.

B
One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and budget, the series premiered with the highest Friday-Saturday drama ratings for SBS in 2020. While several factors including the rise of streaming platforms, controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes, it was the most-watched title on Netflix in several countries and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks after its first airing. . Its international success was one of the reasons cited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company, Studio Dragon.

Survey

 * A. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A. Revolutionery (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weakly A. (see comments below) Nangears (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge them. Include facts from A missing in B and vice versa, and keep the sources, but use more neutral wording style of B.  E.g., "Hailing as" is ridiculous promotional language, and isn't even a correct use of "hailing".  Add serial commas to make the inline lists of things more easily parseable.   Next, move most of this blather into a "Critical reception" section along with the sources, and trim the lead material to a concise summary of the key points.  Leads should not include nit-picky details, nor include source citations other than for potentially controversial claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (RFC on second paragraph)
Improvements to current second paragraph with B: 1. Better sentence construction; break overlong sentence into separate sentences. 2. Replace "ensemble cast" with "cast" as former term refers to "cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production." One of the reasons for the high anticipation was that this series was Lee Min Ho's comeback drama after his military service. The term "ensemble cast" does not capture this while "cast" would cover details about any cast member including comeback from military service 4. Remove budget amount which violates MOS:INTRO that says, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Note that the amount is already mentioned in the Production section as well as the summary section at the right side of the page 5. Remove redundancy in "premiere" and "first episode" as they mean the same thing 6. Replace sentence containing the term "hit" violating MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'" 7. Add a noteworthy citation from production company. It will be noted that the lede section is supposed to establish or introduce the noteworthiness of the topic per MOS:INTRO. This citation adds weight to the global performance of the series. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

,, , now you can vote on the new RFC. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have given my vote to version A, but as another user had pointed out in the previous RfC (forgive me for not remembering who it was, the discussion has been lengthy), I think it needs to be simplified for being written in an exaggerated manner. Thus I have only given my support weakly, just so that it is noted that I think the paragraph could still use improvement. Despite wanting to note my issues with A, there are still issues of balance with version B, so I can't support it over A. Particularly, I think the section on its low ratings falls into issues of editorializing, using the a structure of "while it had low ratings, it was still successful in other ways" (which I think is what was trying to point to in the earlier RfC, linking to MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, although she didn't specify, so I don't wish to speak for her), and so minimizing the low ratings and negative reception to emphasize markers of its success. I think in content, version A is more balanced, so I have given my vote to it, but, for what it's worth, I think simplifying it would help improve the article. Nangears (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you specify the things that need fixing or the exaggerated text, so that after the RFC I can go and fix them. Also about that MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, what you said is what I meant. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, (as I'm not trying to presume what the other user I mentioned was suggesting for edits, who I went and checked and it was I was referring to), I think most of it is just simplifying the structure and reducing the wordy references to some of the show's achievements a bit. I think the current first sentence could be broken up into two separate sentences, with the first being the anticipation for the series and the high ratings for the premiere, with that second half of the sentence (about its record on SBS) simplified, because it seems overly wordy. Then, the second sentence would become your information on the success on streaming platforms, including Wavve and Netflix, but I would suggest eliminating the quote about Netflix as to me it makes it feel overly wordy, instead maybe just keep the same reference and use your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link). Also, grouping Wavve and Netflix together as streaming platforms I think would help clarify for the average Wikipedia reader what Wavve is, as I don't believe it has a Wikipedia article that a link would be able to quickly give that info. And I would leave the final sentence as is, as there aren't major issues that I can see and reflects the consensus reached on how to present the low domestic ratings and negative reception that has been discussed here on the talk page so far, although if it were possible to find a way to more simply list the criticisms of the screenplay, directing and editing, I think that would add a bit of balance as well. I was considering the wording of "crticisms of the production" but I fear this is too vague, as production can have multiple meanings when it comes to a TV show. I hope that was a clear way to explain it, and at least gives you some ideas for editing the paragraph for simplicity when the RfC closes. If you want clarification on anything, please just say so! Nangears (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As I was mentioned by one of the user(s) and I remember you asked me in previous RFC that's why I will just write what I think the paragraph should be. I will also ask Lizzydarcy2008 and to see and comment on this:

'''Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, production budget and extensive publicity, the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings. It maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks and saw popularity overseas. On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings. The reason claimed by The Korea Times was the competition from streaming platforms, while The Korea Herald explained that the drama "failed to impress audiences".'''

I hope sources can be added because I used all the sources which were provided by you two. And rest all the information provided by the two proponents can be added in the reception.Revolutionery (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Revolutionery the last sentence about the lower-than-expected ratings conflicts with the phrase about the series setting a record for SBS highest premiere ratings. To remove the conflict, it needs to be specified that it was the ratings in later episodes (after the premiere week-end) that were negatively affected. Another thing, controversies were among the major causes of low ratings, aside from the rise of streaming platforms. The controversies undermined the production, thus were a major reason it "failed to impress", though this is subjective since the series did impress some viewers. "Failed to impress" is also not neutral language. Korea Herald is actually one of the publications suspected of taking part in the sabotage against the series; it was one of the publications that kept republishing the controversies even after the production team had apologized for the cultural slips. So may newspaper names be kept out of the lede section? This would also be in keeping with MOS:INTRO rule about not being "overly specific". The series achieved tremendous success in Netflix but downplayed with this phrase "saw popularity overseas", while the low ratings take up two sentences. Is this neutral? fair? This is the reason I added the citation from the production company as it gives an idea of the extent of the success of the series without using Flixpatrol data. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lizzydarcy2008; I am not proposing anything to be added, I am just giving an opinion that it can something simpler like this, just for an idea to be incorporated by either of you; Idea Not Content. Revolutionery (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Revolutionery Your first one and a half sentences are actually good, although is "Hailing as" really necessary? The sentence looks more professional without it. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Yours does seem good too but we have to replace the word “claim” per wp:CLAIM. We just have to wait for the RFC to finish, then we can improve the sentence structure. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

,, , , There seems to be a misconception about "neutrality" and "balance". It does not mean for every one positive thing said about a topic, a negative thing needs to be presented. Please see the section about false balance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance) which states, "false balance may stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally". Please also see "Balancing aspects" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" which states, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The international success of the series on Netflix is its most significant achievement. Yet there isn't one full sentence about it in the lede section. This might be understandable before, when the only source of Netflix data was Flixpatrol. However, testaments to the international success of the series have been flowing from the second quarter reports of the production company. Other sources have also been found (please see B). The operative word is due or proportional weight. False balance is the reason for the negative lean of this page and what gave rise to this dispute. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know that anyone here thinks that neutrality and balance means saying one negative thing for each positive thing, as no one's proposed paragraph reflects that. Based on my suggested edit to 's paragraph, there would be two positive sentences to one negative (which isn't actually changing the content of her paragraph, just restructuring it somewhat, so her paragraph has the same weighting, it just simpler to see once the long first sentence is broken up). But, as you said, it is not about a fixed number of positive to negative things that creates neutrality and balance, but rather a proportional weight based on notability and sources. In light of that, I think maybe you should examine your own lead paragraph. Considering that the low ratings, controversies, and criticisms is one of the most discussed aspects of the show, does it really seemed balanced to you to only have half a sentence in your proposed lead, which as I mentioned before has issues of editorializing? Its international success may be said to be its most significant achievement but that does not erase the significant amount of reliable, secondary sources that discusses its low ratings, criticisms, and controversies, both of these can be notable aspects of the show at once, and the lead should reflect that with proper weighting. You may feel that's unfair, but as I have said previously on this talk page, you cannot erase the negative reception the show received, even if you feel that it was unfairly maligned. Nangears (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on earlier discussions about this page, the reason given for why we cannot put positive remarks only in the second paragraph as with other kdramas is to have "neutrality" and "balance". Thus, the production budget, low ratings, controversies and criticisms are supposed to make an appearance in the lede section. It will be noted that version B does mention all of these negatives. To satisfy the requirement for "balance", the first and second sentences of version B are both combinations of negative and positive aspects. The third sentence gives due weight to the topic's most notable achievement, its international success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, a WP article needs to have a neutral point of view. But, as you already stated in an earlier comment that does not mean an equal amount of space dedicated to the both positives and negatives, that is, one positive for one negative, but rather it should be proportional to what is presented in reliable secondary sources. Also, as I mentioned above, my main problem with version B, and why I chose A over it, is not so much the basic points of it, (as I have seen that you added the negatives in), but the way those points are presented. You have half a sentence with negatives, and these negatives are downplayed through editorializing, despite it having a significant weight in secondary sources. (Also, hardly the main point here, but I'm unsure of why you mentioned production budget as a negative. Having a high production budget is usually considered a good thing, as people often take it as a sign of a well-produced, polished show, and thus why it is listed as something that added anticipation to the show. I would say your first sentence is wholly positive, as it is essentially "this was a highly anticipated show, that premiered with high ratings", but this is a minor point, as I have said, it does not need to be a one-to-one ratio of negatives and positives.) As I think the neutral point of view is the main issue at hand here, I voted for A as it seems to handle that neutrality better, and some minor edits for cleaning it up for easier reading is not as major of a concern in my opinion, for resolving the issue of which paragraph should be used. Nangears (talk)


 * The reason high anticipation, especially the budget, are negative in the context of this drama is because that is the main reason the ratings are considered lower-than-expected. The ratings are actually solid, but detractors of this drama reckon it should have higher ratings considering the budget, writer and cast. While other kdramas are happy to garner 3% to 5% rating, this drama that rated as high as 11.6%, had lowest rating of 5.2% and averaged 7.7% rating was called a flop because of the high budget even though it broke-even before it aired. It's intriguing that version B, which applied Wiki rules like "not being overly specific" and followed a natural flow of events (anticipation, premiere rating, factors that affected domestic ratings in later episodes, streaming performance) seems to you like it downplayed the negativity. It's not that the negativity was downplayed; it was that the original paragraph emphasized the negativity and version B neutralized it. That "on the other hand" at the end of the paragraph puts the lower-than-expected ratings on par with the streaming success of the drama. The domestic ratings are much less significant than the streaming success. And as noted earlier, the ratings are solid. In any case "lower-than-expected" is judgmental, not neutral language, violating Point of view. Only detractors keep emphasizing that the ratings are lower-than-expected. This is why Wikipedia is looking like it is being used as a tool by detractors to keep smearing this drama.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The high anticipation is also tied to its high premiere ratings, so even if the large budget, cast, or director are brought up in relation to low ratings, that doesn't mean being a highly anticipated show is a negative thing. Version B downplayed the negativity based on the sentence structure that suffers from editiorializing, as I explained already in earlier comments. How are you determining that the domestic ratings are less significant than streaming success? Most of the sources I have seen (not just provided on this page, but in looking through many other reliable sources), as I mentioned to you in earlier discussions, talk about the low domestic ratings. Even many articles discussing its streaming success, at least mention as a caveat that it had low domestic ratings. "Lower-than-expected" is using the wording of secondary sources and therefore is not an editor inserting their POV, but a reflection of what sources say about the drama in a fairly wide consensus. There were high expectations for the drama, and its ratings were lower than that. Thus, it had lower-than-expected ratings. Nangears (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Per Point of view, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." That "lower-than-expected ratings" sentence puts Wikipedia smack in the middle of a dispute. It pits the domestic ratings against any success the drama achieved which grossly distorts what happened. By putting the domestic ratings on par with high anticipation, high premiere ratings and streaming performance, version A grossly downplays the streaming success of the drama.


 * Here is the subliminal summary conveyed by version A, "The highly-anticipated drama started well and met with some success in the streaming market but flopped because it had lower-than-expected domestic ratings." Here is the summary of version B, "The highly-anticipated drama started well in the domestic market, met with issues that affected its domestic ratings in later episodes but was successful in the streaming market." This is the real story which detractors of this drama keep trying to distort. It puts the domestic rating in its proper place in the story. To see how much more significant streaming success is compared to domestic ratings, around the time the drama aired, the number of Netflix subscribers worldwide was 192 million while the population the domestic ratings were based on was 21 million South Korean households. And to repeat, the domestic ratings were solid, another thing detractors want the public to dismiss. Another thing to note, news sites were among the detractors, some of which changed their tune when the international success of the drama became known, meaning not all news articles are reliable. This is why we need to "carefully and critically analyze a variety of (so-called) reliable sources". Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If it is putting WP in the middle of a dispute, please show a source for that, because many of the sources I saw, even those discussing international success, mention lower-than-expected ratings, so there does not seem to be any dispute on that point. Also, as I have stated earlier on the talk page, if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources. Nangears (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I was trying to avoid another wall of text thus did not give examples of sources that turned around since I had already mentioned them in earlier discussions. Here are some: In April, Korea Times posted several criticisms about the series, including that it was struggling; in July, it reported that "Viewership is not everything", that the drama has "conquered the most-watched TV show charts in various countries on Netflix". In April, Hancinema published several criticisms about the drama ; in August, it reported that the drama deserves most of the credit for the success of its production company. In July, Pinkvilla reported the drama as having failed to hook audiences ; in August, it posted an article about how the drama beat Crash Landing On You as most watched kdrama on Netflix in 2020.


 * There is no doubt the drama's ratings went down after the premiere week-end. Version B mentions how several factors affected the ratings in later episodes. The dispute is whether the emphasis on the "lower-than-expected ratings" in version A is warranted. As mentioned before, by putting it in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand", version A accords it as much significance as the items in the first sentence put together, i.e. high-anticipation, premiere rating and streaming success.


 * I had previously pointed out how much more significant the streaming success is compared to the domestic ratings based on the numbers of Netflix subscribers and SK households. But it's not just the size of the pool of viewers that delineates the significance. The show aired on the domestic TV network SBS for 2 hours each week, a total of 16 hours, from April 17 to June 12. Whereas, from April 17 to today, Sep 15, it has been available for streaming on Netflix for 24 hours everyday of the week, a total of 3624 hours. It was among the top 10 most watched TV shows on Netflix in several countries up to Aug 21, more than two months after it last aired on SBS. This easily dwarfs the Nielsen viewing statistics. And it is still available for streaming on Netflix. Check Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media sites. People are still watching and re-watching it on Netflix. The highest-rated show in SK domestic networks in 2020 pulled in an average of 3.8 million viewers according to Nielsen Korea. This is for 16 viewership hours. With 192 million Netflix subscribers worldwide, there is no doubt at least that many watched the drama for at least 16 hours on Netflix. Netflix SK alone had 3.28 million subscribers in April and the show was #1 in Netflix Korea and in at least 10 other countries. Is it still "balanced" to pit SBS domestic ratings against streaming success? That the earnings of the production company skyrocketed in the second quarter of 2020 is a clear indication of how much more significant the streaming success was over the "lower-than-expected ratings".


 * Thus, the issue is not the lower-than-expected ratings per se but how it is presented. Aside from according it more significance than it warrants, version A violates Neutral point of view rule that states, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". "Lower-than-expected ratings" disparages the drama. Note how the second sentence of version B mentions the ratings in a more neutral manner. In addition, version A does not specify that only the later episodes are affected, thus is misleading whereas, by mentioning the ratings right after the premiere ratings were mentioned and specifying that ratings of later episodes were affected, version B is more organic and correct. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To try and be concise, I think the main issue here is that you need to recognize that the show can be very successful internationally and not so successful domestically, and those can both be true and significant things. Also, I think trying to argue that it is irrelevant how well a South Korean drama performed in South Korea seems to certainly be a stretch. What people on social media say or that it exists on Netflix does not negate or diminish the fact that it did not see huge popularity in SK. It can have found success elsewhere, and still not have done well with domestic viewership, those things do not negate each other as notable facts.


 * To be a bit lengthier and address your sources, you deleted your mention to it after I began writing my response, but the mention of Soompi here and any petition is irrelevant as Soompi is not considered a reliable source. The Korea Times sources aren't changing their story, they are still emphasizing that it didn't do well with domestic ratings, but adds to this in the second article by saying that international interest in K-dramas has allowed studios to gain revenue from sources other than domestic viewership, pointing to Netflix covering production costs for dramas, so that a Korean drama that doesn't do well domestically is not necessarilly a net loss for the studio. For HanCinema, the first article even mentions that the drama may do better with international markets then it had been doing domestically, so it even acknowledges, before any data was in, that while it had low domestic ratings, it may still find success internationally, thus it later talking about its success in some way is not changing its story. The last source I'm not even sure is a reliable source (I have not encountered it before, but it seems to be a gossip site in the same vein as Soompi), but regardless, the first article is comparing domestic viewership in the first half of 2020 of various dramas, and then the second article is on the top Korean dramas on Netflix. So, again, this isn't contradicting itself, it has already been acknowledged by everyone on this talk page, as well as in the proposed versions of the lead, that the show had low domestic ratings and had success on streaming services. These two things can both be true, they aren't contradicting statements. Nangears (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have always accepted that the domestic TV ratings of later episodes were affected by unfavorable factors. The second sentence of version B says so. My main issues are:
 * 1. The lower-than-expected ratings are given more significance than warranted in version A and that is the main cause of the negative lean of this page. The only area affected by the lower-than-expected ratings is the SBS domestic TV ratings, and only the later episodes. The drama had high premiere ratings, reached #1 on Wavve and Netflix SK charts which are also domestic ratings and did very well in the international market. Yet, the way version A is constructed puts the lower-than-expected domestic TV ratings in the second sentence on par with the premiere, Wavve and Netflix ratings in the first sentence. I think this was an attempt to "balance" the positive and negative aspects of the topic but instead created a false balance, violating Point of view Balancing aspects where the discussion of lower-than-expected ratings is "disproportionate to (its) overall significance to the article topic".
 * 2. The language is disparaging in violation with Point of view Prefer nonjudgmental language. Note how version B tackles the subject of lower than expected ratings without resorting to sensationalistic language.
 * 3. Version A does not specify that the lower-than-expected domestic ratings only cover the later episodes after the premiere week-end, thus is incorrect and misleading. Note how version B organically discusses the effect of unfavorable factors on the premiere ratings in later episodes. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

,, , , To summarize the discussions, following are the flaws of the second paragraph:

1. One of the reasons for the high anticipation was because this series was Lee Min Ho's comeback drama after his military service. The term "ensemble cast" does not capture this while "cast" would cover details about any cast member including comeback from military service

2. Specifying the budget amount violates MOS:INTRO that states, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions... greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Note that the amount is already mentioned in the Production section as well as the summary section at the right side of the page

3. "Premiere" and "first episode" are redundant

4. Sentence containing the term "hit" violates MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'"

5. The paragraph does not specify that the lower-than-expected domestic ratings are caused by the rise of streaming service and only cover the later episodes after the premiere week-end, thus is incorrect and misleading. Note how version B organically discusses the effect of unfavorable factors on the premiere ratings in later episodes.

6. The domestic TV ratings are given more significance than warranted. The only area affected is the SBS domestic TV traffic, and only the later episodes. The drama had high premiere ratings, reached #1 on Wavve and Netflix SK charts which are also domestic ratings and did very well in the international market. Yet, the way the paragraph is constructed puts the domestic TV ratings in the second sentence on par with the premiere, Wavve and Netflix ratings in the first sentence. I think this was an attempt to "balance" the positive and negative aspects of the topic but instead created a false balance, violating Point of view Balancing aspects where the discussion of domestic TV ratings is "disproportionate to (its) overall significance to the article topic".

7. The "lower-than-expected ratings" is disparaging in violation with Point of view Prefer nonjudgmental language. Note how version B tackles the subject of the domestic ratings without resorting to sensationalistic, tabloid-like language.

8. The phrase "Hailing as" is extraneous and makes the paragraph read like a high-school term paper.

Version B attempts to correct these flaws. Those who care about the quality of Wikipedia writing should not allow these flaws to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel that I'm mostly repeating what I have already said, so to try and keep this concise, I feel that the main point of contention in this RfC has actually been resolved, with both of the initial users in the discussion making some concessions in regards to their initial points, based on the sources presented. Now, most of these points above fall into one of two categories: a misuse of WP guidelines or a fixation on differing opinions on word choice. 1, 3, and 8 all fall into the latter category, as these are all relatively minor differences in word choice that aren't seriously impacting the quality of the article, they are mostly differing choices in phrasing. While I think their presence isn't really detracting, I'm also not opposed to them being removed, as I have said above, in voting for A, I do think it could use some clean up, which is where I agree with point 4, in removing the quote, just to give a simpler mention of the Netflix success, in a more streamlined manner. I have already addressed many of the places where I disagree on Lizzydarcy2008's use of WP guidelines, such as the issue of "lower-than-expected ratings" or the issue of "false balance", so I won't repeat myself here. To be concise, I don't think that those are actually issues at all, and in fact I would say following Lizzydarcy2008's proposal would be to the detriment of the lead, and thus my vote for A. Unless new arguments are put forth, I think I will refrain from further commenting on this RfC, as I think the arguments have become mostly circular, without any advancements to understanding or compromise, so I will let my vote stand as it is and let this close in its due course based on community consensus. Nangears (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. My apologies for what may seem as a circular discussion but it appears the points I am trying to convey are not getting through, thus I try to paraphrase them in an attempt to make them better understood. Version A does not alleviate the negative bias of this page, the main reason for this dispute. The paragraph construction unfairly downplays the main achievement of this series - its international success - at the same time giving undue significance to what tabloids like to call "lower-than-expected" domestic TV ratings. Please see #5, 6 and 7. Does it not bother anyone else that this page is imparting misinformation about this topic? In addition, this page definitely does not sound encyclopedic with its sensationalistic, tabloid-like language. Another thing, what about version B is detrimental to the page? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. My apologies for what may seem as a circular discussion but it appears the points I am trying to convey are not getting through, thus I try to paraphrase them in an attempt to make them better understood. Version A does not alleviate the negative bias of this page, the main reason for this dispute. The paragraph construction unfairly downplays the main achievement of this series - its international success - at the same time giving undue significance to what tabloids like to call "lower-than-expected" domestic TV ratings. Please see #5, 6 and 7. Does it not bother anyone else that this page is imparting misinformation about this topic? In addition, this page definitely does not sound encyclopedic with its sensationalistic, tabloid-like language. Another thing, what about version B is detrimental to the page? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop tagging me and other people, we all see your messages, and I already told you I will not discuss further and will wait for the votes. You don't want to compromise, edit without being biased, or listen to other people's points, so there is no need for me to keep replaying to you with the same points over and over again. Nangears already pointed to you that "you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources." CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Lizzydarcy2008 - I am not a participant in this discussion, and I initiated this RFC so that it could determine the consensus of the community without my mediation. You are being tiresome and tendentious.  Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time?  If you really think that other editors are being disruptive, you have the right to request administrative involvement at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first, because that would be likely to result in a warning to you, and possibly in a topic-ban.  I do not accept your apology for the circular discussion.  Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I was dragged into this dispute but when I dared voice my opinion, you accuse me of being "not willing to compromise", "biased", etc. Talk about twisting things around. I'm not the one refusing to heed facts and logic, refusing to have further discussions. In fact, I had agreed to 's suggestion to work together and thought that was what my exchanges of ideas with him and  were for. Isn't a Request for Comments intended to sort out issues by soliciting comments, not just have people vote without justifying why they voted a certain way? Per WP:Vote, "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." I have listed the flaws of version A. Version B corrects those flaws. I have replied to comments raised against version B. So I'm stumped why people would prefer the flawed version. There are two main issues making the second paragraph negatively biased: the most significant achievement of the series, its international success, has been downplayed while the lower-than-expected ratings have been blown out of proportion. The "walls of text" were attempts to point these out as well as to solicit comments that would  help form a paragraph acceptable to everyone. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see more discussions about this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unpleasant_RFC_at_Talk%3AThe_King%3A_Eternal_Monarch. The issue comes down to version A espousing outdated misconceptions about the drama. Reliable information about the drama's success became available after the second quarter of the year. Version B includes up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , why has the lede section been updated? And with an additional comment about "mixed reviews" that was never discussed before added too. No consensus regarding our dispute has been achieved yet. Per WP:Vote, "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." In fact, Nangears suggested using "your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link)" which I agree with as the quotes lower the credibility of the report, undermining the drama's most notable achievement. Note how version B presents this fact. The overriding consideration should be up-to-date and properly weighted information. The 30-day limit is just the bot's trigger to perform automated action; it may be overriden. You know very well the discussion is still ongoing in above-mentioned noticeboard and did not end on Sep 24 as you noted in your edit summary. Violating rules against editing the page while dispute is ongoing has become a habit of yours.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You did not delay Legobot or restart both the RFCs and there was no discussion since September, which means for now is has ended. Plus the discussion moved to the Administrators' noticeboard which means “ that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively.” (Per: Consensus)


 * Also, who said we can’t update or include new things following the RFC? If there is a disagreement about the new content then you should start a new post about it on the talk, why do I need to discuss every single edit or update with you beforehand? You are going against wp:OWNBEHAVIOR, “The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.” I added “mixed reviews" because it is well-sourced, what is the problem? CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , in the first place, the dispute is not yet over, so you have violated the rules against editing the page during a dispute for at least the 3rd time. What is the point in having all these dispute resolution discussions, RFC's, noticeboards, etc. if at the end you will just write what you please? Please note WP:TALKDONTREVERT "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." Also note Consensus "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." You are fully aware discussions about this drama are still underway in the noticeboard, having been participating in it. I also mentioned this in my post on Oct 7 above. Due to the ongoing discussion in the noticeboard, this RFC was extended per WP:RFCEND. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your Oct 7 edit was after the bot removed the RFC template, there were no new comments since Sept 23. Also, you did not restart the RFC even though you knew the template was removed. Also per WP:CONACHIEVE, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached ... Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Please read Repeating the same argument without convincing people, Never accepting independent input, Righting great wrongs. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020
Please add the following line to the Reception section, end of second paragraph:

“With the drama's performance in the second quarter, Studio Dragon has recorded its highest sales and high margins ever." Syntyche S (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It is already on the page, read the Reception section. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)