Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 5

__NOINDEX__

Are music show wins notable?
Just today, this question came up while setting up a page for Mamamoo's latest release: Are music show wins notable, and should they mentioned/listed in the song's/album's/artist's wikipedia pages? I have been told (in a quite passive-aggressive and unwelcoming tone) that music program wins are NOT notable, and that I should feel free to delete them from every article relating to K-Pop that I come across. Has there been a general consensus on this? As I have seen, music show wins are very prevelantly listed on pages all throughout Wikipedia and hardly any of them are sourced.

Furthermore, if music show wins are not reputable to be kept track of, should the archives on the Music Bank, Inkigayo etc. pages be emptied out too? I'm not interested in edit warring or stan-warring, I'm just interested in improving the quality of the content. --92.211.8.0 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Should they be mentioned in the articles? Yup, but only in a prose in one sentence, something like "the song won a first place on South Korean music programs ten times". Tables? Nah, those are not an actual awards like MAMA, Golden Disc Awards, Melon Music Awards etc., so no point of listing those 1st place wins in the table format. There was no discussion specifically for that, but there was a proposal years ago that those "awards" should be removed (see Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Girls' Generation), where 3 regular K-pop editors at that time pretty much agreed to remove it, but no one removed it in the end, why? Because IP fancrufters would constantly add those tables back obviously, leading to a constant disruption and edit wars. I also saw that other editors removed those tables in other articles a couple of times during the last months, I think they were User:CherryPie94 and User:Drmies. Snowflake91  (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you could just have asked the other editor, or simply taken their advice, or looked more carefully at policies and guidelines. This stuff about tone is an underhanded jab at the comment by Snowflake--who, as it happens, is pretty experienced. And "ask for sources instead of edit-warring is a bit rich if you say it while edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I'm literally a new user, not even registered yet and barely have completed one article. Sorry, but Snowflake did not give me any advice except for a snarky one word reply. That's not very encouraging. And like... isn't this right here the place to ask question? I saw that my edits kept on getting reverted and tried to understand why. That's literally why I posted here and stopped adding the stuff back. Being slapped with "you should have researched better" on top and then being accused of being underhanded and snarky (when appearently I'm not even worth a full sentence after my first question/statement) just makes me not want to come back and try to help. 92.211.8.0 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright im sorry for WP:BITE you, but 99% of IP K-pop editors are not like you, they would never talk or discuss, and then their IP switch and wont even see my message on their talk page etc., so I thought that you are one of them. White Wind (EP) is pretty OK article for your first edit, its sourced and formatted as it should be, I didnt even know that you created it, just came across it and deleted those music program wins without checking the history.  Snowflake91  (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , and who participated in the Girls Generation discussion before.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I forgot to answer the second part about those music programs – see Music Bank (TV series). How is this not a fancruft? "List of most No. 1 winners", "List of longest consecutive No. 1 songs", "List of top 10 highest scores (5th system)" etc., all of this is unsourceable original research, but good luck deleting that without being restored by an IP editor with zero previous edits literally within ten minutes. After all this is just a music TV SHOW, and not some kind of an Olympic Games discipline to include all those stats, records, high scores, wins in a row and all similar crap. Snowflake91  (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think need to have a centralized discussion about the matter because recently went on a spree removing all the music program wins from articles, but I'm not seeing consensus to do so. They justified their edits by citing Talk:Momoland, but that's who made arguments in favor of its removal with a rather confrontational demeanor to the new editors, with  and  arguing for its inclusion. Snowflake91 deemed them easily non-notable to be included, but I'm not seeing a valid argument to justify this view on the matter, and certainly not enough to affect the entire project. The claim that these wins are not awards is simply not true. Korean sources use the Korean terms "수상" or "상" ("prize" or "award") and the acts who win receive a trophy (트로피). A prize is described as an award in that article, so are used interchangeably in English. They are won every week. What about that makes them non-notable? These wins can have a huge impact on an musician's career. Infinite was set to disband after finishing promotions for Over the Top, but they earned their first music show win with "Be Mine" and that changed the course of their career (excuse me for not providing a source, but I am pressed for time at the moment). This article delves into how important it is for acts to win on music shows, as receiving one can make a career while not receiving one can end it, and makes a difference on whether or not the groups will be left in debt from their failure or whether they end up paying it all off and start making a profit as a result of the success that these music show wins creates.

After observing how articles over Korean music groups are treated, particularly idols, it has becomes quite evident from these discussions how incredibly uneducated the participants are about how the Korean music market operates. Everything is deemed "non-notable" without much of a thought or any type of research. ℯ xplicit 07:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thats what prose is for, to mention that Infinite did not disband because they won 1st place on a weekly music show, no need to put 1st place dates in random tables. Korean sources are also always mentioning Gaon Chart weekly 1st places as a big deal, will this also be included in the awards tables? And its not true that there were only 2 users supporting this removal, Redalert2fan also agreed, apparently Abdotorg too if he is removing those tables. At Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Girls' Generation, there were also 3 more users who agreed that those music show wins are not notable to be in those lists and should be mentioned only in a prose, and if including users Drmies and CherryPie94, who didnt directly support the removal at the talk page, but have removed those wins in some other articles themselves for the same "non-notable" reasons, then the consensus is pretty clear – the only one who opposed were those 2-3 newly registered fancruft WP:SPA's as someone obviously posted this on some kind of a forum or Discord to get fans here and opposing the removal. Weekly TV Show awards are simply not a "real" awards that should be included in those articles, despite getting a physical trophy or not. In fact, there should be a discussion what kind of awards can even be included, because there are a lot if minor awards with questionable notability all around those articles. Snowflake91  (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If we need to establish consensus somewhere else, I'm happy to weigh in there. But, for now, I'll say here that I agree music show wins are generally non-notable and never belong under the Awards and nominations sections of articles. In cases where music show wins are notable (e.g. a group has a record number of wins, and reliable news sources write about it), they should be included in the text of an article with supporting references. It doesn't seem like anyone is suggesting that music show wins should never be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but I think that including exhaustive lists of them in tables (which are almost never sourced) is bad practice per WP:NOT. Lenoresm (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please show me where these sources are which refer that topping the Gaon chart infers an award and that the musicians receive trophies for the feat. Otherwise, I don't understand your argument.
 * So, you're citing other stuff exists in one other article and that's suddenly project-wide consensus and justifies Abdotorg's actions? Interesting. Have you considered that, just maybe, these users become SPAs as a result of the hostility they encounter when they make edits to these articles? In case you are not aware, requested to be renamed to  following the aforementioned discussion and has seemingly abandoned the project.  also stopped editing, and the discussion on the latter's userpage suggests others have stopped editing in fears of being reverted. Your behavior in that discussion, and of other users in other articles, is exactly what WP:BITE discourages. So, considering the number of users that have likely abandoned the project by feeling unwelcomed, which allows you to claim these are SPAs, where exactly is this consensus you speak of?
 * I have yet to see any substance to the argument indicating why these tables of music show wins are not notable to be listed. They are regularly covered by reliable sources, indicating notability, and the article I linked above explains their significance. So where is the reliable sources refuting this? Why are they not notable to be listed in table form, aside from it just being your personal opinion?
 * The tables you are against is exactly what we do for record charts. They are in prose of a song/album article, they are in tables further down the article, and they are in discographies. Some articles even do the same for awards, see Sweetener and the accolades section for example. Mentioned in prose, has a table, and the awards are listed on List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande. Omitting tables for music show wins doesn't look like consensus to me, just another attempt to discourage a particular fanbase from editing at all.
 * The fact still stands that they are awards. This has also not been refuted, and sources support this statement. I ultimately think we can find a middle-ground somewhere. Perhaps reformat how these awards are presented in table format to take up less space—these tables are dependent on South Korean music program awards table—perhaps edit the template to omit the dates they were won and simply state how many awards a particular song accumulated. We can work to hammer out the details. ℯ xplicit 00:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created two alternatives at User:Explicit/Music show awards. Give it a look. ℯ xplicit 01:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Trailblaze24 and Chubbybangs are totally not Momoland WP:SPAs which were WP:CANVASSed to Wikipedia with one solely purpose – restoring Momoland wins, they havent ever edited prior that. Its irony that you mentioned "bitting" while they were discussing about me behind my back, following my edits, and actively searching for someone with autoconfirmed account that would restore wins, they should have been banned immediately. And why comparing "Accolades" from Ariana Grande which are annual awards, like "Billboard 50 Best Albums of 2018" or "NY Times The 28 Best Albums of 2018" etc., of course those accoladaes are notable, but weekly chart-based 1st places from music shows are not.  Snowflake91  (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So long as each entry is reliably sourced (for every win if there is multiple), I don’t see why this information shouldn’t be included in articles. It shouldn’t be blindly thrown out as fancruft without any real thought as has been done in previous discussions on the topic. It’s a huge part of the South Korean music industry, and as stated above can determine the path of a group or singer. Out of your alternatives, I think alternative 2 looks a lot cleaner, simpler and nicer. Alexanderlee (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to just post this below, but this isn't going to fit in sections to responses anywhere above.

Well, where should I start? Maybe a general overview first; Over the past few days relating to this discussion I have seen about everything, WP:SPA's openly discussing WP:Canvassing and trying to avoid page protections, Mass reverts without any explanation by new accounts, some pages now have a page history that looks like a battlefield due to WP:EDITWARING and even in this exact discussion assumptions are made about what other people know, or their intentions. Let’s at least keep it WP:CIVIL. Regardless of what is the right way to go I am glad a discussion has been started so we can get a real consensus. Unfortunately like before some users reverting seem to be ignoring request to explain why they are doing this. Although this may have been due to not everyone being notified to come to this page, which I hope I have fixed now.

For me this started at Momoland where lots of people have been reverting each other but only Snowflake91 and in my opinion 2 clear SPA's (a look at User_talk:Chubbybangs should explain enough) have been sharing their views on the talk page. Reading Snowflake91 comments I found myself in agreement with his points raised there and since none of the other editors involved responded (see momoland edit history) I supported the removal of the content, not only from that page but also from the others. For me it seemed that up to this point no established user was for keeping them, might be a case of undue weight given to the users involved in this project but the new users/single edit editors did not seem to give any better reason that "it’s on other pages" and "I like it so we keep it" (not a direct quote).

However personally I felt reluctant to remove them myself due to foreseeing a situation such as we are in now with IP's and new account reverting every edit, without any regard for the ongoing discussion. As clearly is the case now since Abdotorg removed the entries from all pages. Now even more people started coming in reverting him and Snowflake91 without any regards to policy and edit warring. Of course these people are all fans of their respective groups and they might feel like we are deleting the wins because we don't like the groups (as some of us including me were accused of). For any of those users I have to say that I really don't dislike any group and don't mind who you support, I am a fan of kpop too. I don't care who wins what award or show. If your group wins John Doe’s top 237 best groups, how nice. The group wins MAMA, Golden Disc Awards or Melon Music Awards? Great! A music show win? Also important. However between these some are more important/notable than others. Let’s start with that all content should be verifiable according to WP:KO/RS. A fan blog top 5 obviously should not be included on Wikipedia.

Then I came to view this discussion where there are some editors in favor of keeping this content, stating that there actually is no consensus, but to me it seemed there actually was. The argument was used that not enough users commented to gain consensus at Talk:Momoland but no one seemed willing to respond there and many of the relevant parties were not aware of this discussion here and could not have posted a reaction here. A bit weird to me. Anyways now here ℯxplicit clearly provides an explanation why music show wins are important and notable to be included. So okay they should be included in some way. But now to what for me seems to be the problem; Is a Music show win an award or not?

·If not it clearly should not be in the "Awards and nominations section" since it’s neither of those. I feel like the award section should be used for awards shows where you win an actual award in a relevant category such as MAMA and Golden Disc Awards. Is a win in this context equal to an award? In my opinion not, so it should not be in a table under that section. But I do think that music show wins should be included in the main text. "Group x won their first award on music show Y" or "Group A's win on music show B changed their career because of C" all seem fine to me when sourced/referenced. This because as stated above they are very important to the groups and also fans.

·If yes decide or it is clear that they are awards (This appears to may come from a translation error or disagreement in what the exact meaning is.) I support User:Explicit/Music show awards alternative 2. Could anyone clear this up for me?

I have probably missed some comments from above, and hope this stayed coherent but in short, for now: yes the wins should be included in the article but not in a table under awards. This is why I supported the removal from the awards section. And to everyone, we are on the English Wikipedia, there are a lot of international users, not everyone understands everything about Korea or is fluent in Korean. Being ignorant about culture and not listening to explanations about said culture is one thing but having an international point of view should not be an argument used to invalidate anyone's comment on any wiki but especially not the English one. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have asked User:Jolo22 to join the discussion here since he seems quite involved at Momoland but has not responded anywhere. Also I have asked User:Renamed user ajkdlevrks and User:Chubbybangs on their talk page to look at this discussion even though they might have stopped editing. Also pinging, and  since they might be interested. I hope all parties involved are notified now. Redalert2fan (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping Redalert2fan. Apart from the debate over Momoland (which I believe I reverted/restored recently), I had no idea users were going around and finding instances of music award show wins and removing as many of them as they could find. I have no problem with them as long as they can be sourced. I believe Explicit and the users who state that they are inherently important to the South Korean music industry, because they certainly seem to be important enough if all these idol singers and groups are constantly appearing on them. However, there are occasional instances where I think the information has been repeated on multiple different articles and it's been a bit overkill. Like, if they're given to one specific song and that song has an article, the information should not be on the parent EP or album article as well.  Ss  112   13:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are constantly appearing on weekly music shows because that's how they are advertised. Not appearing on such shows means they don't get promotions elsewhere. It is important that they appear - but actual wins are basically a popularity contest and aren't notable on their own. It's basically a WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart that provides no lasting significance. The fact that they cap wins shows its more a promotion cycle event than an award provided for musical accomplishment. So yes, I agree with User:Snowflake91 - okay to mention wins in prose, no need to note every single win in chart format because it is only trivia. Per comments below - English Wikipedia is okay to have different policies from other Wikis - the audience matters here. Evaders99 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Korean music show wins are very important. They are listed under both the awards sections in Korean Wikipedia and Namuwiki. To remove them from all award sections because a couple of international editors who have no understanding of Korean culture or industry consider them fluff is nonsense.Onlytruththe (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who cares about namuwiki, this is a Korean fancruft version of Wikipedia which everyone can edit literally without any rules or guidelines, what is listed on namu is COMPLETELY irrelevant here. And what do you mean "international editors" – this IS an international Wikipedia, not a Korean one. Snowflake91  (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, However Korean Wikipedia might have other policies and guidliness regarding to what is allowed to be included in the articles there. Namuwiki is not a wikimedia website and should not be used as a reference. Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL, Plenty of users here do have understanding of Korean culture, and even if they don't they are also free to share their point of view, since we are on the English Wikipedia. To me it seems that Korean Wikipedia would have a Korean point of view while English Wikipedia will have an international point of view. If the content should be included, not included, is fluff, or might be extremely important is what we are trying to discuss here, not the intentions of other editors. You mention that the music show wins are very important, could you explain why? this will help the discussion. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, just one more editor to comment/stick my nose into a discussion where it doesn't belong. I would support the removal or simplification of music show wins, though I can't say I feel particularly strongly either way. The question of trivia vs. significance is really a detail of point of view. If you look at kpop pages from a point of view that moves within the K-pop sphere, then weekly wins become slightly more significant, the number and frequency of which can indicate a group's general popularity (although the worth of that information, which presumably would be illustrated in prose, is up for further discussion). However, if you consider the point of view of somebody entirely new to the magical realm of kpop and all its squabbling inhabitants, then a music show win is of little value and becomes trivia. Moreover, a group can win 15 or more music show trophies in a single promotional period, which by default decreases the worth of the trophy, and by extension, the value of that information. This is also seen in variety shows, as one or two may be special, the more a group appears on, the more trivial the appearances become. Considering that most of the music shows have their own Wikipedia entries, detailing who won what when, perhaps a simplified version of show wins (aforementioned 'Alternative 2', which is a very neat and tidy solution) or a simple "see [Music Bank] for recent figures"-esque message, would be a way to remove clutter and trivia from pages without pretending music show wins never happened, or are of absolutely no value. PeppermintGlow (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you are being hounded? This is a serious accusation, and evidence would be useful. Please note that baseless accusations like this are a form of a personal attack. Regarding the Sweetener article, I was specifically pointing to the awards table under the year-end lists. You stated that these articles don't need "random tables"—which happens to contain two of them in the same section—but that article and many like it prove that they aren't so "random".
 * Compare Sweetener (album) with those music show wins. Are there only year-end lists, or are there also weekly popularity rankings? There are no music programs like that in the US, so it would be equivalent if Sweetener would have some "awards" like being ranked #1 for popularity on a "xxx radio station" for week 43 of 2018, number #1 on a "yyy radio station" for week 3 of 2019 etc, why would something like that be notable. Snowflake91  (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have expressed a valid concern regarding the WP:SINGLEVENDOR issue, but the way these music shows calculate their ranking and winner don't align with the aforementioned guideline attempts to prohibit. Unlike listing iTunes charts or a Total Request Live ranking (which was based solely on fan votes back least back in the day if I remember correctly, not sure of its current edition) music shows use compile most if not all of the following metrics: album sales, digital sales, SNS (like social charts do), votes, broadcast points, and radio broadcast. They are all weighed differently among themselves and relative to one another. This system really doesn't fall under the scope of WP:SINGLEVENDOR, especially since it hands out an award to the top contender.
 * Here are some English sources that back up the Korean sources, for those who face the barrier language: The Korea Herald noted that, "In 2013, B1A4 won the first music show award on MBC's Show! Music Core..." ; regarding BtoB's "I Mean", The Korea Times wrote, "...which received an award on MBC's music TV program Show Champion..." ; in an interview with Idolator, Monsta X's Jooheon said, "I'm proud of every moment that we went through, but I was probably the most proud of us when we won the award at the music broadcast." ; Manila Bulletin also writes "music show award" ; in a different article by the latter, it explains "Show Champion [...] gives out the Champion Song award every week" ; International Business Times uses "award" ; Metro also shows that the winners receive trophies . So, removing these music show wins on the basis that they are not really awards is clearly wrong. Taking this into consideration, can someone explain to me why these music show wins should not be included in tables under awards and nominations sections/articles? They are both notable and significant, as I noted in my first post in this thread. They are also, despite claims to the contrary, considered awards by reliable sources both in English-language and Korean-language sources. Any basis for their removal other than "I like don't it" or "It's cruft"? ℯ xplicit 00:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can also easily find sources which doesnt call it "awards", but "trophies" or "champions songs", like 1, 2 or 3 etc. If anywhere, those wins should be eventually listed at the song/album articles using that "alternative 2" format, even though they are never accolades, but never at "list of awards and nominations" articles. Snowflake91  (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Trophies" are synonymous to "awards" though, and vice versa. Heolkpop (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To infer that the terms used in those articles equates to them calling music show wins not actual awards violates WP:SYNTH. You can not come to your own conclusions if the sources do not directly state this. ℯ xplicit 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here, Gaon Chart weekly 1st place is reported as a "win", so add all gaon chart 1st places in the tables as well then, they are "awards" if a win/1st place equals "award". Snowflake91  (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please lay off Google Translate. The verb in question is "차지했다", the past tense of "차지하다", which means to possess, occupy, or monopolize. ℯ xplicit 10:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, use an English-version of this article which clearly says "win". Snowflake91  (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Now, please: a) demonstrate how Kpopspoon is a reliable source; b) please indicate which award is being "won" here. ℯ xplicit 12:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now indicate which award is won when they win the weekly populariy ranking at the music bank, if music bank 1st place win is an award just because they "won" it, then gaon chart 1st places are also an awards. Snowflake91  (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way is music show a popularity contest? Since you mention Music Bank, according to their chart system, none of the percentage goes to either pre-voting or live voting by fans. In fact, only digital and album sales, broadcast score and panelists' votes are used to determine the winner. Looking at it, Music Bank is definitely not a popularity contest, and it has a similar criteria to an awards show, for example the Golden Disc Awards. Heolkpop (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Snowflake91, as indicated by the English-language Metro source I listed above, it verifies that a trophy is awarded and there's even a picture of Monsta X holding it. You've either missed it or have chosen to ignore it. ℯ xplicit 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can any 3rd party actually valid the data of these shows? There isn't a reliable way to confirm their methodology is valid. And AFAIK there are still many accusations of them being rigged. Evaders99 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I randomly selected Music Bank to search for and quickly found a source supporting the calculation detailed in the article. Not quite sure what role the rigging allegation plays. Yearly award shows are regularly accused of being rigged. Sandaime J Soul Brothers's win at the 2015 Japan Record Awards comes to mind. I remember iKon being accused of it for their win in 2016 (or was it at the 2017 Japan Gold Disc Awards?) as well. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My very simple opinion on the matter: first ever career wins? notable! career changing wins? notable! any other wins? non-notable. I agree that the wins considered notable should be listed in prose instead of in a table. Abdotorg (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a strange way to look at it. There is a thing to be said about fandoms driving accolades (like AKB48 selling 2.6 million copies of "Teacher Teacher" on its first week, which looks astounding on its surface, but was front-loaded with nine editions and as an election single, yet little general public interest), but our job is not to legitimize or de-legitimize them. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no problem with listing music show wins, even on a table, as long as reliable sources are provided to support them. I do not see a difference between the yearly awards shows and the weekly music shows – the former determines the Song of the Year and other categories, while the latter determines the Song of the Week. Both of them may have a similar criteria system too. Music shows are also a huge part of the South Korean music industry and, correct me if I'm wrong, they have a long history. However, I would support the change of the current awards table to the alternatives suggested by Explicit. Heolkpop (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the articles are called "Awards and nominations", im also expecting that when someone would add those awards back with full tables and dates, it would also include all nominations for those music shows, since weekly top 3 are the "1st place nominees" and then one of them is proclaimed as the winner. Snowflake91  (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure if you want it to. But I believe those who have no problem with the inclusion of music show wins would go for the suggested alternatives instead. Heolkpop (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is just me, but, it seems as though you’re not trying to seek consensus but more trying to force your opinion on what you think is right, and getting a little sarcastic when things aren’t going your way, and trying to make problems where there aren’t any, such as with your comment about also expecting the top 3 to be there, too. Looking back at the conversation on Momoland, it seems similar there, too. I’d also like to point out that, despite there not being a consensus on this matter yet, you have still removed music program tables from articles (or at least one; Itzy) despite the section being reliably sourced. Should you not wait u top consensus is reached? (Genuine question there, I’m not sure which is why I’m asking.) My opinion on this is still the same, though. If it is reliably sourced, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be included. It isn’t a popularity contest, as show by Music Banks example it does have a system to it. The South Korean music industry is vastly different to the western industry in terms of promotion and awards like these, and this has to be taken into consideration. If the artists weren’t awarded a physical trophy, perhaps did view it differently, but they do receive a physical award, and as pointed out by others there are sources which call these awards specifically. Alexanderlee (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There's something to be said for adding them back, as everyone can probably see from the above conversation. However, if the consensus is to re-ad them in all articles, then they will likely be unsourced. Having thousands of "awards" across K-pop artist awards articles completely unsourced obviously does damage to the reputation of all K-pop artist awards and nominations articles. Nicklaus AU  01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Only important awards should be noted. Many radio stations regularly run their own countdowns of top songs (Top 9 at 9). Total Request Live had video countdowns with winners every episode  People have countless local media awards and corporate honors just from visiting. Sports athletes win Player of the Week or Player of the Month awards. Those don't pile up in their Awards articles/tables. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, a source provided highlights why they are important. Do you have any sources to refute this? All these "I don't feel like they're important" views directly contradict WP:YESPOV policy. It's what the sources say, not what editors feel. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the WP:WEIGHT of such awards. It's like when Stephen Curry wins Western Conference Player of the Week . Of course there are articles from major news sources that highlight this accomplishment, but it doesn't mean it should be listed alongside his MVPs and Championships. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How many sources claim it's a significant award in a basketball player's career? Do they make or break their career? Music show awards clearly do, as outlined in several instances above. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 00:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * user:explicit Are there any concensus/voting or some sort associated by this topic and the original poster of this thread regarding music show wins notability? or this is just merely a discussion? I'm all for the stand that music shows are indeed important and notable. From the musicians and fans expressions, you can tell how much they value the music show wins when they burst into tears. From fans' perspective, the music shows result is a reflection of how much commitment the fans are willing to make for their beloved artists. Live voting, album sales, digital sales and etc cumulatively are the measure/criteria of music show wins. It converts popularity/success into something tangible and quantitative. The criteria (live voting, album sales etc)aforementioned are recorded by each music shows committee and archived into statistics. Simply put, fans' commitments/contribution towards artists mostly resulted in music show wins. Now here comes the debate, in order for music show wins to become notable, music show wins has to equate success. Does music show wins equal success? Id definitely agree with this part, yes, music show wins equal success. For instance, the reign of each artists on the top spot(how long one artist can stay number one) is a reflection of how dominant the artists' music is. Furthermore, music show wins are constantly used as a benchmark for the achievement and success of a particular artists as evident in the Korean media which headline and update the artists music show wins regularly from time-to-time. Thus, music show wins are important milestones and a measure of success of artists' release in kpop industry. If fans commitment towards their artists != successfulness of artists comeback or music, I'm speechless. I agree and support OP's statement that music show wins are notable.FakeMaknae (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey
At this point in the discussion, I believe we've reached the point where editors have made up their minds about whether or not music show wins are actual awards, and to what extent they should be covered in articles. As there has been quite a bit of back-and-forth, some opinions may have been muddled in all this text. I think it's best to get a general sense of where everyone stands to have a clearer picture and we can decide how to proceed in dealing with this content thereafter. Below, I've listed what I believe are the major stances of the editors above, and would like to have editors specify where they stand. If you do not fit under any of the categories, please feel free to make a more general comment.
 * 1) View A: Music show award wins should be included in "List of awards and nominations received by ARTIST" articles and sections, and presented in tables like other yearly awards. They should also be mention in prose in the related song or album articles.
 * 2) View B: Music show award wins should not be included in "List of awards and nominations received by ARTIST" articles and sections. They should only be mention in prose in the related song or album articles.
 * 3) View C: Music show award wins should not be included in "List of awards and nominations received by ARTIST" articles and sections. They should not be mention in prose in the related song or album articles either, unless in particularly notable cases, like the aforementioned win of Infinite's "Be Mine", or record-breaking instances like Girls' Generation's nine-week string of wins for "Gee".
 * Please note that I omitted the option of including tables in articles about the songs and albums because this is not uniformly followed among other articles of artists in the western world. This is best decided editorially in a case-by-case basis.


 * View A is my view on the matter. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View A for me, too. Alexanderlee (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B for me. (Though if View A ends up being the consensus, let's pull together some resources to make sure the wins are reliably sourced). Lenoresm (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B for me. I feel like they are not really that important. They are literally just a music show, not an award ceremony. Moreover, the singer winning on the show is not even a big achievement. The list would be massive if we added it since the shows air weekly.  CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View A for me. The list would be massive? I believe it would not be a problem with the alternatives created by Explicit – they are much more simplistic than the current ones. Heolkpop (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View A for me. (I've been active on Wikipedia intermittently and I just came across this.) Anyway, articles such as Inkigayo and M Countdown have been regularly updating first place winners even since 1998. Every week's winner was recorded which proves its importance and legacy. I will consider music show wins as notable, and it should be listed under the awards and nominations page. Obviously, music show wins should come after year-end awards. Looking at what Explicit proposed on his sandbox, I find the downsized versions succinct, concise and is pretty much doable. Requiem II (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B, these are part of their regular promotions. In the US this would be the equivalent of making the top choice on Total Request Live or some magazine's weekly list. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B: for me. Agree with AngusWOOF that these are basically advertised promotion cycles. Would be happy with C as well. Evaders99 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B: Most support for B for me. With the note that in addition to them being mention in prose in related song or album articles I am also fine for first wins / aforementioned career effecting wins to be include in prose in the main artist article. "group X got their first music show win at show Y on date Z". All adequately referenced of course. However If A I would really prefer Alternative 2 from Explicit alternatives page. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * C. I'll settle for B, but this anything less than that means we are simply regurgitating the play-by-play of the marketing professionals--because that's what this is. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B: per AngusWOOF above, those weekly awards are equivalent of radio weekly populariy rankings in the US, its more than enough to mention them in the prose. Snowflake91  (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View C: B seems just as excessive as A in the respect that it will just be the same but in prose. Abdotorg (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View C: Revisiting this issue music programs in S.Korea are similar to those in the US like TRL or BET, and they are all popularity ranking charts. It doesn't mean the complete exclusion of these programs is necessary. Some instances like "Gee" winning 9 consecutive times, or "Gangnam Style" breaking the record of "Gee" (10 times), are worth mentioning (for comparison purpose: the mention of such instances is similar to mentioning that "Baby One More Time" or "Dirrty" were among MTV's top videos of all time). — HĐ (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View B for me, but would also be OK with A. I was content with the vote swinging towards B rather than A, but I'll vote now that a few C's are creeping in. I think they lack enough relative significance to be given equal standing as larger awards, but they are definitely significant enough collectively to warrant a mention in the lead.  Nicklaus AU   22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View A Fully agree with view A, u can check my previous discussion on how fans' commitment and support translate to music show wins and therefore success and how it's used extensively among within the kpop realms(fans, celebs, media, etc) as a bencnhmark for success.FakeMaknae (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * View C My stand is pretty much the same as those that have already been argued. Notable means that by winning those music shows, it becomes a career-changing event for an artist. Two different songs can have the same number of music show wins, but one turns an artist into a superstar, while the other does not have that same effect. There might be many reasons why, but one reason can be that the time has changed. Just because something has happened before does not mean that it will create the same effect again. Therefore, only notable cases should be discussed in prose. Otherwise, these music shows fall under the WP:SINGLEVENDOR or weekly music chart that provide no significance--TerryAlex (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward
Please read below.

Well, with only five in support (31.25%) for including music show awards in "List of awards and nominations received by ARTIST" articles and 11 not in support (68.75%), I would say there is no consensus to include these awards from such pages. In regards to the inclusion of this content in prose and the possibility of tables in the articles of songs and related albums, 12 editors support this option (75%, both views A and B support this). Only four editors who subscribed to view C (25%), one who would settle with B, so this option had the least amount of support and clearly failed.

Now, moving forward, we need to go about this in an adequate manner. Thoughtlessly removing this content from "List of awards and nominations received by ARTIST" articles with no regards to incorporating it elsewhere is harmful and destructive, and you'll likely find yourself being reverted by K-pop fans as history has shown. Some of it is pretty straight forward: if the song which has won music show awards has an article, move the content there. If there is no article for the song, but there is one for the parent album, move the content there. If the album has no article either, the content should be incorporated into the musician's article with no tables. There is no standard for including tables in the song and album articles, so that's an editorial decision.

This does not have to be done immediately, and it probably shouldn't be done that way. There were concerns raised above about these awards not being sourced and, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm the only one in this discussion that can actually read and understand Korean and would have an easy time finding Korean-language sources for these music show wins. Given that, I don't see a high probability of people finding references and incorporating them into prose, so let's focus on the tables right now. We likely need deprecate South Korean music program awards table and create a separate template that's more in line with User:Explicit/Music show awards (which is the only alternative that others supported, I think). Once that template is finalized, we can begin the process of moving the content out of the awards and nominations lists, and into the appropriate articles. Does this approach sound good? <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 05:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks mister explicit for your thorough explanation and carefully thought out idea for next course of action. Good idea, strong suppport from me. FakeMaknae (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm Explicit I'm with you for the most part, except for the "the content should be incorporated into the musician's article" bit. It's a good thing to have less tableporn, but as you know the prose sections of most of these articles are pretty bad too, with all their teasers and announcements and whatnot. If we start adding these many weekly things in there as well it'll get worse. Plus, the likelihood of there being no article for the song is probably close to zero, with all the K-pop fans and the likely agents for the entertainment companies. But it's a start. Next up, that bit where every K-pop artist who is given credit for a song getting the appellation "songwriter" and a table full of songwriting credits... Drmies (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the opposite is true and that a majority of the songs don't have articles. Looking at list of first place winners list for Inkigayo, even though nine out of thirteen songs are linked, only four lead to song articles. The rest lead to album articles and shouldn't be linked to begin with.
 * As I mentioned above, removing the content entirely would just enable edit wars, and I don't see the issue of including this information in musicians articles if there is no song or album article. The "it's too hard to source it, so let's remove it" approach is a disservice to our readers. News articles mention how many awards are accumulated over the weeks. For example: "[종합 '뮤직뱅크' ITZY(있지) 2주연속 1위…마마무·벡퍼센트 컴백]" (" [Round-up] ITZY 1st Place for Two Weeks in a Row on 'Music Bank'…Mamamoo·100% Comeback"). If "Dalla Dalla" had no article, it would be mentioned in the Itzy article as "The song accumulated nine weekly music show awards" followed up with references.
 * Anyway, if editors decide to incorporate a table into song and album articles, I've made a tentative final version at User:Explicit/Music show awards/final. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 01:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This looks good, but this should be listed only at song's articles – if the song for any reasons fails WP:NSONG and therefore doesnt have an article, then those 1st places shouldn't be listed anywhere (in the table format, prose is okay – but only a total number of wins for each song, not sentences like "They won their first award on 11 March, they won their second award on 18 March, they won their 10th award on 11 December" etc., I already saw that somewhere where literally every win was listed in the prose). But good luck finding someone who would add this to all articles, especially since finding sources for 5+ years old wins can be a bit tricky, if not impossible for non-Korean speakers, there is pretty much no reliable English media that would cover these wins.  Snowflake91  (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a GA reviewer
Some of you may have already seen from viewing the article or the nominations page, but Exo (band) is currently GA nominated and has been for 6+ weeks now. If anyone has time to review it, that would be much appreciated. Improving the quality of it right now is important. It's the most visible article relating to South Korea on Wikipedia at the moment (page views - see #23) NicklausAU (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi all, just everyone involved in this Wikiproject that Exo (band) is still looking for a GA review. If anyone has some time to spare to please review the article, it would be much appreciated. It's getting a bit silly now, considering its been almost a year without a review.  Nicklaus AU   00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Korean broadcast programs in filmography sections
So recently a debate broke out regarding Rosé's filmography section which is reflective of a larger trend of the inconsistency with idol filmographies. The justification for the removal of one event was that it was a variety show, when the show in question was not a variety show, and later that it's too adjacent to a variety show to be included. This show was in turn a music show, and the supposed removal for this was in a 2017 discussion about removing variety shows. This discussion, despite its size, did not reach a formal consensus. The closest thing to it was a summary written by detailing what they believed to be the most common opinions. This was only corroborated by three of the editors who participated and was in no way a formal wrap-up to the discussion. Some of those bullets are not actively being followed, anyways.

My goal with this discussion is get that formal consensus in a similar style to the above about music show wins. Like last time we can have a good discussion and have a survey following summarizing opinions. This way there will be an actual, citable standard for these sections rather than individual editors doing what they please and citing the previous one as blanket proof that their way is correct. There's a handful of things I'd like to accomplish with this discussion, but let's establish one thing for sure: this will be about filmography sections and related lists, not about removing any mention of a Korean broadcast program from an article's prose. Lists and paragraphed sections are separated for a reason.

Here are the discussion points that I feel covers the arguments (feel free to mention more if need be):


 * General variety programs (Running Man, Knowing Bros, etc.)

I believe we all agree that should not be added unless they're a proper cast member, like Heechul on Knowing Bros. If someone contests this here is where that should be discussed.


 * Music performance shows. King of Masked Singer, Fantastic Duo, Hyena on the Keyboard, etc.

With this I want people to keep in mind that regular variety programs were removed because most people felt they had no affect on an idols career — they sit there and discuss their favorite color or do random minigames for an episode, which doesn't relate to their musical career. Most seem willing to have some of these on, however please understand that these appearances often do relate back to an idol's career. For example, when I was writing Rosé's section about the critical reception to her singing voice, almost all of the legitimate, critical discussion mentioned her King of Masked Singer or Fantastic Duo performances. Heo Sol-ji's two King of Masked Singer appearances, especially her win, were the starting point for most of the discussion about her skill as a vocalist which has gotten her spots on other notable programs. Hwasa's song "Don't Give It to Me" was made as part of Hyena on the Keyboard, which is not mentioned in her filmography section. That song hit number one on South Korea's national music chart Gaon, was her first solo number one, and is her only certified song (platinum). It seems there's a disconnect to me that a show that provided her with such a hit is deemed not notable enough for her career.


 * Overseas equivalents.

People seem to be fine with programs comparable to variety shows if they're overseas. Keep in mind these accomplish the same thing as variety shows — they're asked random questions, though they often perform after. The same is for music performance shows — one-episode-only performances on shows like America's Got Talent are generally considered to be notable.


 * Anything else I may have missed.

Hopefully this discussion and help alleviate the consistent debate and edit warring on these sections. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi user:DanielleTH, thank you for bringing this up again (and for including me), as general consensus wasn't reached last time. I would agree with point A, with menial variety shows not being relevant. As for point B, I'm on the fence (so far at least). While these kinds of shows can and often do bring more notability to a singer's career, I feel that equally often they are no more than another pit-stop on stage. Fans may point to an idol's performance to interject an idea of the idol's abilities, but does that always make it actually notable if that appearance doesn't lead to, forgive me, bigger and better things? It's unfair that singers such as Hwasa have to give up their rights to their career peaks, and I'll admit it's odd if the appearance isn't mentioned in her prose? I would worry mostly about groups who do not have a page for every member. If 3/9 members of a group all individually compete on KoMS, that's chaos waiting to happen when it comes to adding in the individual members' achievements. On the other hand, if we allow only truly notable appearances to be listed in a table, how do we decide on what passes for notability on such a micro scale? I'd like to see music-based programmes added to many pages, I'm just a bit stuck on how to make it happen.PeppermintGlow (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Music shows / album articles vandalism by a sock IP
There is a sock user which has the same editing patterns everytime; he adds fake winners on music program articles and then changes a length of random songs at random album articles, it looks like that or that, this has been going for almost one year already and its always a different IP but always the same edits, if you see something like this revert it immediately, especially at albums articles since its much harder to spot then at music programs.

Examples:

And many more Snowflake91  (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Contestant ages in competition reality shows
I've been looking over the Produce 101 articles and is it necessary to list all of the trainees' ages? I understand company but I'm not sure why trainees' ages would be relevant as it would be BLP trivia. lullabying (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hiatus vs Disbandment/Departure vs Group member
The rules on this are not clear. Kara had 3 of its 4 members leave in 2016 with the members citing that they were on hiatus and not disbanding. However, Wikipedia has marked the group as disbanded. 4 years later, the same situation has happened with f(x), however, they did not say that they were remaining f(x). Even though the situations are practically identical, they have been deemed active and its members whole, despite Amber leaving the Korean industry, and SM confirming she and Luna have parted ways altogether. Yet they don't have any more association with the label according to the statement. User:Snowflake91 said this is because their situation is like Girls' Generation but its not even close, because the girls generation members and SM said straight out they weren't departing, in contrast to SM saying Amber and Luna are gone. Henry left SM under the same circumstances as Amber and Luna as well but he's marked as a former member of Super Junior-M while they're still in f(x).

I have no idea wether Wikipedia has chosen to do this out of favoritism of artists or what, but someone please explain how these rules work.-K-popguardian (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's a little tricky because there needs to be explicit confirmation that the artists have left the group. AFAIK neither Amber nor Luna has mentioned anything about whether they have left f(x) (I think Luna even said somewhere that f(x) isn't "disbanding"). This is a lot similar to Berryz Kobo where the members have stated that their group is "on hiatus indefinitely" instead of "disbanding", so I guess it's a matter of wording? lullabying (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not always. Wikipedia has marked B.A.P and Kara as disbanded, despite both groups stating indefenite hiatus rather than disbandment, and there have been many edit wars over the subject. According to the editors then, word of the artist doesn't matter. However, T-ara who's gone in the same act is marked indefenite hiatus.-K-popguardian (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like this problem largely stems from group members sharing a sentiment ("In our hearts, we haven't disbanded!" / "We hope to come together again as [X amount of members] in the future!") rather than simply stating the objective fact that they are disbanded. An all too common problem in the Korean music industry. That's how we have situations like The Grace, who are apparently still on "hiatus" after eight years. It doesn't help that K-pop fans feel that it is required for an entertainment company to directly state so themselves, otherwise anything published by a reliable source that confirms a disbandment is disregarded.
 * Anyway, this ultimately boils down to verifiability. Regardless of whether the company or the group does not directly state that a disbandment occurred, if reliable sources publish stories stating that they did disband, then the article must reflect those sources. That's why B.A.P is marked as disbanded, because various reliable sources in Korean and English confirmed it as so. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 02:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

15& and TraxX are marked as disbanded despite no group statements from companies, members, or any reliable sources. 15&'s is referred to as "de facto disbandment" and if you look at TraxX's chat, me and Evaders99 deemed them disbanded under the conclusion that Jungmo had joined a new label and because of that, it became clear the group wouldn't reunite. I haven't seen any objections with these, but on other articles that's an issue apparently.-K-popguardian (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If the source for 15& says it's a de facto disbandment, the article should (and does) say that. For TraxX's case, you and did exactly what you should not have done. WP:V is very clear. The content of the article is "determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." You two have introduced original research into the TraxX article. Jungmo joining a new label is irrelevant because the trademark for TraxX belongs to SM and they would continue the band, not its previous members. Like I said above, if reliable sources state that a group is disbanded, the article should reflect the sources. If there is no sources that confirms disbandment, the article should not claim it either. The status of a group is not something editors can decide on.  <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT  00:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should go against WP:V either. We should clearly mark when the group is active in terms of years. Just don't pretend that Korean groups are on "indefinite hiatus" when it's clear that they have no reason to return to promotions. Contracts are there for a reason, Korean companies tightly control their artists and their responsibilities. They will almost never confirm directly that the group is disbanding because they don't want to publish bad news. Stuff like "X is still a member of the group" despite no contract and no appearances in said group is horribly misleading. Evaders99 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've found better sources for TraxX's disbandment and have added them to the article. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that disbandments are almost never confirmed directly. I looked through the sources under 2019 in South Korean music and your claim is contradicted there.
 * For the record, it is possible to be signed to different labels and for the group to continue to promote together. Three members of Brown Eyed Girls remain signed to Mystic Story, while Narsha left the company last year . That member signed to Dmost Entertainment in February . BEG is releasing an album in October . The sources determine the state of the groups and their members, not editors. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 06:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a harder one to determine. Yeah groups like Girls' Generation, 2PM, Infinite, and EXID have dealt with that but they haven't actually come back as groups, so there's little way to determine if they really are gone or not when their whole groups haven't returned to confirm so.-K-popguardian (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Intro: Persona
Any opinions on the move discussion at Talk:Intro: Persona? PC78 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Produce X 101
I have opened a discussion for a WP:SPLIT proposal for the section Produce X 101 at Talk:Produce X 101. Your input is appreciated; thank you! lullabying (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Single albums"
I know South Korean music has a term called single albums, but this doesn't exist in other countries and I've been noticing that Japanese singles have been listed as such too (whereas in Japanese context, they're just a single with an A-side, etc.). Is there a way to differentiate? lullabying (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Singles usually contain 2 songs or a song and an instrumental. Single albums will contain 3-4 different tracks, and occasionally other iterations of the songs (ex: NCT Dream has "My First" which contains 3 songs, followed by extra tracks in other languages.) -K-popguardian (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A Korean single is also usually a digital only release while a single album typically has a physical CD release. Alex (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Japanese singles should not be listed as single albums. Any physical object that contains music (CD, USB, vinyl, etc) is, legally, considered an album in South Korea, and this concept only exists in South Korea. In the case where South Korean act releases a single in Japan, it is still only a single and not a single album. There was a discussion regarding the "single album" format here. The labeling of Japanese singles as single albums is emphatically incorrect. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I did a bit of digging and what would be considered a "single album" in Korea is actually considered a maxi single in Japan and other countries? I'll go with what Explicit said, as I do see some reasoning to that -- "single albums" should only be listed for Korean releases since it's not considered that in other countries. lullabying (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians
FYI, there's a Request for Comment about including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Please feel free to participate. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove dating info from Korean artist
There is currently a discussion about the removal of dating info from Korean artists here: Talk:Kim_Hee-chul Please help us reach a consensus. This could become a precedent and affect all Korean artists' pages. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC about the The King: Eternal Monarch
Currently there are two RFCs in The King: Eternal Monarch's page; RFC on the Second Paragraph of Lede and RFC on Reception section. Your opinion would be highly valued as you are familiar with Korea-related pages and k-dramas/TV series pages. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata Wikiproject
An enthusiastic editor created a task force d:Wikidata:WikiProject Korean Entertainment on Wikidata, if anyone is interested to join and help create/correct/expand Korean entertainment related elements on WD. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Including how work has been received by experts and the public in articles about Korean musicians
Should information about how work has been received by experts and the public be included in articles about notable Korean musicians?

(This could include mentions of talented vocals, challenging choreography, emotional songs, international fans, and music genres.)

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The same user who deleted concerts/tours from an article, which wasn't supported by guidelines or communal concensus in the previous RfC, also deleted this information from the same article (writing in their Edit Summary that it was “fluff”), and discussion with that user didn't resolve the situation. Following Wikipedia's recommendation to “ask for help at the relevant WikiProject”, I would be interested to read the views of other editors to confirm consensus. To keep the discussion professional, please cite sources to support statements, as I've tried to do below. This helps focus on the goal of group collaboration based on factual evidence, rather than just individual opinion.

To put this issue into context, that information is included in articles about American musicians, such as Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson,, which are both classified as Featured Articles. In those articles, talented vocals is mentioned so extensively that it has its own section (“Voice and timbre” and “Vocal style”, respectively). Challenging choreography is mentioned so extensively in the Michael Jackson article that it has its own section (“Music videos and choreography”). Emotional songs are mentioned so extensively in both articles that they have their own section (“Musical style” and “Themes and genres”, respectively).

This information is also included in some articles about Korean musicians, such as Girls' Generation, which is classified as a Good Article. In that article, popularity with international fans is mentioned numerous times: “the group was regarded as the most popular K-pop girl group in Japan”, “Girls Generation remains the popular girl group in Korea”, “Their immense popularity in South Korea...”, “the group's popularity was still strong...in Japan.”  That article also includes information about music genres:  “The group's signature musical styles are characterized as electropop and bubblegum pop, though their sounds have varied widely, incorporating various genres including hip hop, R&B, and EDM.”

Wikipedia seems to confirm that these comparison articles avoid “fluff” and set precedents:

“A good article...addresses the main aspects of the topic...without going into unnecessary detail.”

“Featured articles...are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.”

Including this information also seems to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle to “use common sense”. If musicians are notable for singing/dancing/songs, then expert or public judgments about their quality aren't inconsequential (the definition of “fluff”). Musicians would have no careers if it weren't for the financial support of fans, therefore fans aren't inconsequential (the definition of “fluff”). All these elements would be integral to an article that doesn't omit any major facets of the topic.

Finally, there is a Wikipedia policy that specifically states: “it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. … Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.”

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to have a civil discussion here about this issue.

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia's established practice, “Policies...document communal consensus”, so it should be appropriate to close this uncontroversial discussion. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't getting the attention it should but I very strongly believe that the reaction by experts to a musician and their work should be put on the page. People don't create things in a void and critical receptions, commercial receptions, and even general public receptions (like public backlash for lyrical content) is really important to understanding said musician's career. While it isn't k-pop, a good example of this is Adele's page that mentions how critics classify and discuss her voice, as her voice is a vital part of the kind of music she makes. Her voice is generally well received and the page reflects that. The issue with mentioning positive critical reception arises if the praise is too repetitive or excessive to be neutral or if negative reception is intentionally omitted. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving your attention to this issue and sharing your viewpoint as an experienced editor. The example you cited of the Adele article also helped to demonstrate that including this information is standard practice in articles about Western musicians whose singing talent has been well received by critics and the public.  Another example is in the Mariah Carey article, where the lead section states, "she is noted for her...melismatic singing style".


 * The article about a Korean group (in which this information was deleted from the lead section) only included one sentence there mentioning talented vocals, so it shouldn't violate any of the possible issues that you raised about praise being too repetitive or excessive to be neutral. I also don't believe that any negative reception was intentionally omitted.  I'd be happy to provide you with a link to the text in question, if you'd like to confirm for yourself.  Hyuny Bunny (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

if I may add, in kpop articles these kind of statements are usually backed by articles from yellow press, like Soompi and Alkkpop, or general newspaper articles, which is hardly "experts". Experts are notable music critics who actually understand what they talk about and not just average kpop fans writing passionate articles for allkpop, claiming themselves to be "experts" just because they listen to Kpop. Your sources matter most. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  23:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Album categories
Okay, I don't understand this at all. Some articles count special albums as seperate albums, some articles don't. Some articles count Korean and Japanese albums in the same category, others count them seperately. Now there's a user who's refusing to let me put EXO's latest album as a studio album because "Koreans have special albums" (but they're putting it in an EP section) and "they have mini albums not Extended plays you should know as a k-pop fan" and are threatening me with the edit warring protocol.

Someone just set it straight please because the discography rules with South Korean music are so disorganized. How do we count albums and extended plays and "special albums"??? - K-popguardian (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed alot of requests and such here don't get any responses so pinging people I KNOW are reliable and can help settle this:

- K-popguardian (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit came first on the discography. I didn't "refuse to let you" make the edit, I reverted your edit. As was explained to you quite clearly on your talk page, Exo has used the term "Special Album" to refer to their two previous (winter-themed) EPs, For Life and Universe. The K-pop industry does not (often) use the term "EP" for what the Western world calls an EP. It's called a mini-album, or in this case, a "special album" for a winter-themed EP. There is no reason to think Exo have again used the term "special album" to refer to their next project Don't Fight the Feeling but have apparently intended to make it their seventh Korean studio album. If it were intended as their next main studio project, it would have been numbered. As has been the case with every other K-pop act's (studio) album campaigns, in which the Korean studio albums are numbered as soon as their promotional campaigns begin.  Ss  112   18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are full studio albums that have been referred to as special albums in K-pop ex: Rise as God and Devil, there's no evidence the new album is an EP either just because their Christmas EPs do it. As a K-pop fan you should know this. - K-popguardian (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was a K-pop fan. Nice try though. There's precedent for Exo specifically calling their winter-themed EPs "Special Album"s. It's not relevant what other acts have done.  Ss  112   18:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't mean it's automatically an EP. - K-popguardian (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And even then it doesn't have to have a numbering like "7th" to be an official studio album. K-pop labels don't usually count numberings of Japanese albums. Are we to believe those are automatically "special albums" or "EPs" as a result? - K-popguardian (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay okay I have this compromise: We don't add the new album to studio albums or EPs until we have a tracklist or time total. Does that sound good? - K-popguardian (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still an official project, so no, I don't agree. And please learn to indent your replies. Also, yes, we know at this point Korean labels don't count Japanese studio albums as part of their numbering chronology. We're talking about what the K-pop industry does. Albums in Japanese are not K-pop. Nowhere have I said everything that is not a numbered studio album is automatically an EP. I'm talking about Don't Fight the Feeling specifically. You're being deliberately obtuse.  Ss  112   18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Why not? It's literally the perfect compromise. I already said that the K-pop industry can label full studio albums as "special albums" as well, not exclusively EPs. And we have no idea how long this album is or how many tracks it has. It's better to just wait till we know what this new album is like before we label it as either a studio album or EP. - K-popguardian (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You already went ahead and made the edit, so you clearly weren't intending to wait nor did you care about what I would say. I'm done talking to you. In future, you'll be reported to an edit-warring board if you pull stunts like this. Goodbye.  Ss  112   18:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What point are you even trying to make at this point? - K-popguardian (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * why did you bother to ask for other opinions if you were just going to go ahead and make the changes that you decided are the perfect compromise without actually waiting for other editors to join the discussion? It makes no sense to decide to label this release as a studio album when their previous release history shows that when they have used the term "special album" they have released an EP. If later sources determine that it is infact a studio album then articles can be updated, but as of now there's no reason to presume they've suddenly changed their terminology. Alex (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * To be fair
 * 1.) I didn't realize at the time I first made the edit that it was never referenced as a studio album.
 * 2.) That doesn't mean the next album's automatically an EP either. In 2015, Super Junior released a "special album" called Devil that was a large studio album that even had a repackage. Then in 2018 they released another "special album" but this one was a 3 track EP. Special albums are names usually given for anniversaries or extra releases but they're not specifically a TYPE of album like studio or EP. I'm not going to re-add it as a studio album but it shouldn't be added as an EP either without further info, it would go against WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.
 * 3.) I didn't have my compromise in mind yet when I first started this, it just kind of happened while both of us were talking about it back and forth. Plus even then I also asked in my original post that started this about how albums should be sorted since articles inconsistently either seperate albums by language or list them all together as one body. - K-popguardian (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about other artists and how they market and promote their releases, this is specifically about Exo. Exo have specifically used "special album" to release EPs. I never stated that it means it automatically an EP, I said we have no reason to presume they have changed their terminology, as in we have no reason to suddenly presume a studio album when their release history shows otherwise. Finally, it isn't your "compromise" suggestion which is the issue (though, Wikipedia works on consensus and not compromises) it's the fact that you went ahead and made the edit to suit your agenda despite an ongoing discussion which uninvolved editors hadn't yet participated in, and you don't seem willing to actually listen. Alex (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't really have skin in this content dispute. I will say that I agree with the general premise that there's no consistency among articles. I'd much rather avoid Kpop marketing terms when possible (What criteria is required for a Special Album?) and use album/EP which everyone understands. My 2 cents. Evaders99 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Special album is a term usually used when the group is releasing an album for an anniversary or in celebration of the holidays. So its not really a specific type like studio or EP, it just takes the place of the numbering. - K-popguardian (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a few points: ✗ plicit  03:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no distinction between a mini-album and an EP. "Mini-album" is just a term used in several Asian countries to refer to what western countries refer to as an EP. They are the exact same release type. "Special album" is not an album type, nor does it refer to any particular type.
 * Album types are determined by how reliable sources classify them. It is never our job to do this. Our content should reflect the sources. Otherwise, you're stepping into WP:SYNTH territory.
 * Universe is referred to as an EP/mini-album in English and Korean sources ; For Life is called an EP by English sources, but it's just a "winter special album" or some combination of those terms by Korean sources.
 * I have not come across any source that specifically states what type of album Don't Fight the Feeling is. It could be one of the two mentioned above, it could be a single album, it could be a compilation album, we simply don't know yet. How it should be listed (as in, in a separate "Special albums" section), or if it should be listed at all until the type is specified, should be settled through consensus before editors takes any action.

Category:Korea/Popular culture articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Korea/Popular culture articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)