User talk:Shinyang-i/sandbox

Please comment on the MOS draft! Shinyang-i (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I don't know what else to do at this point. I need a ton of feedback or someone else can transfer to their own sandbox and pick up the reigns for further improvement/gutting/what-have-you.  Please also invite other relevant editors, as I don't know very many people. I did my best to interpret and clarify WP guidelines with reference to kpop-relevant issues.  If I'm off-base, I wanna know! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , this is back if you care to look at it. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , if no one is interested in continuing this I will delete it. No point in it taking up virtual space if no one is interested in establishing an MOS. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Article titles
A good link to add is WP:BANDNAME. --Random86 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you! I KNEW that was out there somewhere, just hadn't found it yet! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional thoughts
I am still very interested, so don't delete it yet! I will read over the whole sandbox again and comment more later. Here's what I was going to post before you deleted it last time:

Template:Infobox Chinese can be used if more than one language is needed in the name infobox (e.g. TVXQ). There are probably only a few groups that would need it though.

I kind of disagree on not putting the members' official positions if they are lead/main vocalist, since those are the actual positions. I am also conflicted on whether "comeback" should be used, since it is used in reliable sources.

About occupations, some K-pop singers have instruments listed because they played them for one song/MV. For example, After School played drums for Bang! (After School song), so people add "drums" to all the members' pages. They only did it for the one song, so I don't think they are really known for it. What does everyone think? --Random86 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, no rush. :) With the comeback thing, it's being used in Korean and it's not clear, so why use it?  If it's not clear to all readers, that's the main reason not to use it, ya know?  The meaning on "comeback" as it's used in kpop articles is the word's meaning in Korean, not in English, and that violates the MOS, which says to always use English unless there is no alternative.  If the word has to be linked to the K-Pop article every time and readers have to do additional research just to understand a simple sentence, then there's a problem.  This is a non-technical, non-specialist field, so there's no reason to use confusing jargon.  That's my opinion.  I think so many people into kpop are so used to the word, they lose sight of the fact it's actually non-standard usage.


 * I must not have been clear (altogether possible LOL) about the positions. If they are sourced it's fine. But no "made-up-by-the-agency" positions like "visual".  they should follow some real-world standards.  In the case of what you mentioned, some things are not translating correctly, or the agencies are using poor English or something, because I see a lot of profiles that have one member as "lead singer" and another in the same group as "main singer".  Those two terms have exactly the same meaning in English, so it's confusing as written.  The editor needs to call them both lead OR main singer, or just call them "singer" or something.  It's just part of smoothing out translations.  A translator's raw translation rarely makes perfect sense, and often publishers hire an entire other person to make it into standard English.  Like when something translated from Korean says someone injured their waist - well that's how it literally translates into English but what they mean is they injured their lower back.  Rough translations leave it as 'waist', quality translations change it to 'lower back'.


 * And yeah, about the AS and drums thing. It's one of those things that is pretty explicitly outlined in the infobox documentation but is hard to enforce in a case like this.  To me, it's not a big deal but it's "correct" so it should be said in the MOS.  If people don't follow it, well...it's up to each editor how much they care about that particular guideline.  I just restated the guideline, didn't create it. :)


 * Keep the feedback coming! Shinyang-i (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you think should be used instead of comeback? I was thinking something like "They began promoting X" instead of "They had a comeback with X".
 * "Lead vocal" and "main vocal" are actually the terms used in Korean. They are not translated. It is confusing because the terms mean the same thing in English, but they are different in Korean (main is a higher position than lead). So, this is another example of Konglish.
 * Do you think a link to your sandbox should be posted to WP:Korea or some other relevant projects? This would need a lot more discussion to actually become part of the MOS. --Random86 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured the case was something like that. And Konglish isn't for use on Wikipedia, so it has to be altered.  If the Korean intent isn't clear (which, well, it's not), then wing it or call them just singers(?).  I dunno, but using Konglish ain't gonna cut it.  Those terms raise more questions than they answer for the average reader.  Any wording works for replacing comeback, just phrase it the way you would any non-kpop issue.  In terms of linking to WP:KOREA I want to do this in stages, by getting comments and suggestions from a few people, polishing it more, and then rolling out to a bigger group.  Obviously it will need to go through many layers of review, but no way am I gonna have the whole thing derailed in its infancy by a couple of specific people who seem out to sabotage everything or are just plain stupid, I'm not sure which is the case. :P Shinyang-i (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry shinyang, I totally forgot about this after that last time that we talked. Anyways, I noticed the "instrument" and I think it falls into the same problem with "genre", I mean, if someone really uses an instrument within the band (like CNBlue), then having it is justifiable, but if someone only knows how to play piano in real life (or once or twice in an MV), then should we list it? I would say no. For the "position", it's fine to list main vocal or lead vocal if there is a source for it, but it's best to omit if there is not. My side opinion: K-pop mentality is that we tend to "over-label" a lot. We think having a long list of stuff proves our idol's popularity. We also constantly live in a "future-mode".
 * Oh for "comeback", I'm not totally against using the word, but I think it's best if we try to write Kpop from a non-Kpop's POV, so I do prefer using "They began promoting X".--TerryAlex (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the infobox instructions, which I did not create, an instrument is only to be listed if the person actually plays it professionally, like as part of their job (like CNBlue). So it's not even a matter of our opinions, that's just the policy.  (And regarding After School raised earlier, I can't believe anyone actually thought they were playing those drums as opposed to cutely pretending to do so.)  As R86 said, people will abuse it but it's the rule so it at least bears saying, ha ha. I think many editors who get mad at us don't understand that we didn't make any of these rules up; this MOS is just repetition of stuff written elsewhere, with some kpop examples.  Very little of it is a judgement call, it's mostly just straight quoting the original sources.  And hell yes on the over-labeling and let's-make-a-list-of-crap issues.  HELL yes. ha ha Shinyang-i (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)