User talk:Random86/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Random86, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Addbot (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) This has been an automatic notification from [[User:.|.]]. If this was reported in error, please contact the bot's owner.

Flags

Hi, regarding this: Flags are no longer used in infobox per WP:MOSFLAG and countries like the UK, US, Australia, etc, are no longer linked to per WP:OVERLINK. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SIYFF

Hello Random86, I saw that you posted the nominees/winners for SIYFF, but is there like a source/reference to the winners list? Because I cannot find it anywhere. Thanks. --TerryAlex (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The winners were posted on forums/fansites/Twitter. Here's an example. Taeyeon's win was also on Twitter but I think the account it was posted on has been deleted. Eunji's acceptance speech is on YouTube. I haven't yet been able to find a primary source. --Random86 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help with wiki pages

Hi Random86, could you help me out with these three wiki pages: Yuna, Mizz Nina & Najwa Latif. they're really in (considerably) bad state and it'll take a lot of work to rework them but i need help with them and can't rework them all by myself.

would you mind helping out? EnvyDC (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@EnvyDC: Yuna's article doesn't look too bad, but the other two could use some editing. I will go over all three of them and see what I can do. I'm not familiar with the subject matter so I can't really add new information. Random86 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

About article After School (band)

The reference you added in that article about birth name of three singers on Melon, I can't see info. Maybe I have to login to see those info. If that's true, please provide other references w/o registration. Thank you. K34c l4m v13c t0t 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Keaclamviectot: The info is there, and you don't need registration to see it. In Lizzy's profile it says 리지(본명 박수영) and E-Young's has 노이영 prominently displayed in bold font. Kaeun's MelOn profile doesn't have her birth name—that reference is there for her birth date. Her birth name is on her Google+ profile. Also, I'm moving this message to my talk page. Random86 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I visited that article on phone, when I clicked on Melon links, it kept redirecting me to the home page. So I think I must register to see info. Sorry!!! K34c l4m v13c t0t 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section on Red Velvet, Alleged plagiarism section on A Pink

Hello. Regarding the recent discussion I've started about a certain section in Red Velvet, there was a recent edit on A Pink's article. This was of course immediately edited by K34c l4m v13c t0t who I think you're familiar with. Your thoughts regarding the content? Talk:A Pink (I'm asking because you've done something similar with Crayon Pop's article) Lonedirewolf 08:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your move on Apink BnN

Well, I don't want to break my record 2100 edits, so I created the request move without my account. In the future, I will stop all my activities on Wikipedia, so maybe this is the last message of mine. 27.3.0.55 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Random86. You have new messages at Asdklf;'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Want to hear your opinion

Hi Random, I want to hear your opinion regarding this User talk:Asdklf;#Music video appearances, just want to hear other editors' opinions so I can reflect back on what I should do and not do on Wikipedia. Thanks so much.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

Hi random86. I removed sistar content about the 'love is u starship planet" 'mama best female group' and the 2am concert information etc because I feel that its totally unnecessary. We just have to update about their comebacks,albums and more. Dont have to add unnecessary things especially the best female group information. Thanks MindyChua (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@MindyChua: Next time you post on a talk page, place your message at the bottom and don't remove anything. You also need to sign your post. The MAMA award for Best Female Group is a major award, so I don't think it is unnecessary to include it. I will respond more on your talk page. --Random86 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi Random86, I cleaned up the "History" section of Girls' Generation's article sometimes earlier, in an attempt to make the paragraphs easier to follow, but it still needs some further copy-editing, would you mind doing that for me? Thanks buddy and thanks for the discussion we have been having as well :).--TerryAlex (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I wouldn't mind at all, and thank you for taking the time to participate in the discussion. :) --Random86 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
From 2010-2014, I haven't really looked at the Pre-debut and 2007-2009. Thanks buddy :)--TerryAlex (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I already started Pre-debut, but I'll do 2010–2014 next. --Random86 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Hello. Just saw your reply on the Sistar page. I'm a relatively new editor and, in an effort to de-fan the kpop articles, I've been trying to hit people up to find out what kind of issues have been discussed among editors in the past and what some of the norms are. Right now I'm trying to eliminate non-legit awards like Soompi and fan-run awards, plus those nebulous "style icon" awards that give no clue as to the awarding agency. I am wondering, do you know if a consensus has ever been reached regarding the silly weekly music shows awards? Or the appropriate number of TV variety show appearances that should be included? Or anything else like that which might help me trim down some of these out-of-control articles that make kpop artists look more important that The Beatles? :) Thanks for any input you have at all!! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Shinyang-i: The weekly music shows are an integral part of K-pop, and I don't think there is any way you can justify removing them. (I assume you are talking about awards pages). The Style Icon Awards has a website; have you seen it? As for variety show appearances, I believe @TerryAlex: has had discussions about that topic, and more are needed. I've only been editing K-pop articles for a few months, so I haven't seen a lot of previous discussions. --Random86 (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The existence of a website does not make the awards notable, does it? There is no Wikipedia article. I don't know where to draw the line, I guess. As for the weekly music shows, they are on a par with TRL and belong on a fanwiki in my opinion, as we are giving kpop articles far greater levels of detail than other countries' artists. At any rate, there needs to be a discussion, I think! Thanks for the link to the variety show discussion! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Shinyang-i: for the weekly music show, are you talking about this? Girls' Generation-TTS#Music Show Awards. I have no idea what those numbers mean, I wanted to delete it , but I just haven't. We can just summarize and say that they win a total of 20 wins on music shows, but having a whole table for it is just redundant. Kpop articles do need a lot of clean-ups. I attempted to clean up some of these pages and even had some long discussions, but I met with a lot of resistance, it's really hard to change other editors' mentality when it comes to K-pop.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex:} - first, thanks for showing me that "ping" thing. So useful! As for the awards, I wasn't specifically talking about Girls' Generation, though I'm sure their page is ridiculous. I had been looking at pages for less popular, much newer artists, and even they have gazillions of awards listed. I, too, feel working mention of music show wins into article prose is better than the massive lists we're currently seeing. I'm sure there has been a lot of resistance; that's why I think it's vital that non-kpop-centric editors be involved in setting some best practices. If left up to only fans, things will spiral out of control forever. Don't they know there's a kpop wiki out there? ^^ Shinyang-i (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: If you want further discussion, then you can message me on my talk page, I don't want to bother Random86. Thanks buddy :)--TerryAlex (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i:that's why I think it's vital that non-kpop-centric editors be involved in setting some best practices. If left up to only fans, things will spiral out of control forever. Don't they know there's a kpop wiki out there?: I attempted to, but since I met up with so much resistance, I don't know what is the best way to approach it now. Sorry Random86, do you mind continuing this discussion on here?--TerryAlex (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex:I don't mind the discussion being here. Ever since I started editing K-pop pages, I've wondered why WP:WikiProject Korea and WP:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture aren't used more. If every editor who regularly edits K-pop pages joined, and was watching the project talk pages, discussions that involve more than one page could be discussed there. I'd really like to make this happen if others are interested. I don't have every K-pop-related page on my watchlist, and I have missed out on some discussions because of it. --Random86 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: Random86, you have seen me mentioned about this before, but two of the things that bother me among other things are the "list of endorsements" and "list of television appearances". I'm sure you have read some of my discussions with other editors. At this point, I don't see the relevancy of having these two lists at all. Unless the artist is a main cast for those variety shows, there is no point to list out every single guest appearances. Even for those "main cast" ones, if we document them well in prose, then they are not even needed to be listed in a list. Like we can briefly say what those shows are about, and anything worth mentioning about the artist's role in those shows, but just having a long list of guest appearances is just redundant. Kpop artists appear in those shows some hundred times a year.

Same with "Endorsement", if we want to illustrate the Kpop artist's popularity, we can say something like "They have done many endorsements throughout the years, and this shows their popularity..." and reference some of those endorsements; or "Group A ranked number one in 2010 as the top endorser", "they were voted to be most influential..." etc., but what is the point of listing out every single endorsement deal in someone's career? It is just so redundant to me. And most of these lists have no references at all. But I have had some long discussion, and now I'm just tired of it. I now resigned to only pages I'm interested in.

PS: Oh why don't we just delete that "Showcase" section on Sistar? --TerryAlex (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex:, @Random86: I feel the same. There is definitely a preference for listing minutiae over writing substance on kpop articles, and also for repetition. I think we really need to centralize this discussion, bring up all the various questionable items and invite response from various editors. That way when changes get made (i.e. stuff gets axed) to kpop pages, editors have somewhere to point and say "hey, there was discussion/consensus". There are Sistar-esque showcase lists on many pages, for instance (Sistar's is just stunningly lengthy!), as well as lists of endorsements, variety show appearances, music show awards, Soompi awards, awards in idol athletic competitions (I'm not kidding), you name it. It's all ripe for discussion. I will try to begin something at WP:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture talk page, so invite interested, half-way intelligent editors, I guess. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: Same with this kind of description "Person A is a singer, actor, dancer, rapper, leader, main vocalist, main dancer, MC, communications director, promotional model, businessperson, fashion designer, CEO, producer, choreographer, executive producer." After I read this, I don't even know what a heck Person A really is.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies's comment

Random86, I just read his comment on A Pink, his general comment on Kpop articles is absolutely right, all I can say that it is justifiable that we have taken out those info on both A Pink and Crayon Pop's articles. It is time, though late, that we have to set the standard. Including everything on Wikipedia is just simply redundant. What do you think?--TerryAlex (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: Yes, he does have a point. I agree that not everything needs to be on Wikipedia. I do think we are doing the right thing, but there is still much to be done and it's going to be hard to change the status quo. By the way, we haven't taken out the info from A Pink yet. I was waiting for the dust to settle, but it could probably be done now. --Random86 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's going to be hard, but I guess, at least we have to take some steps, otherwise, the problem will never get better. Redundancy + no reliable sources = disaster.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: More editors need to participate though. Maybe we should post a message about the discussion on the talk pages of some K-pop articles so more editors are aware of it? By the way, I just noticed that your edits to Ok Taecyeon were reverted. --Random86 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I know it was reverted, one of the editors of that article even wanted me to be banned, because according to him/her, I was playing favoritism. Just look at that page though: the "variety show" and "endorsement" lists are so "attractive". On top of that, the heading handsomely says "He was ranked at #13 on 100 Most Handsome Faces of 2013".
If you post discussions anywhere, just message me buddy.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: There have been replies on Talk:Crayon Pop and Talk:A Pink, and I'm not sure what to do. Seems like this discussion will never end. --Random86 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like he/she still did not understand Drmies's comments at all.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

hi!

thank
thanks for your information.i don't know a lot of things about wiki.but i'm trying to learn. Elmas2pm (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry~

Hey Random86. Thanks for reverting my revert. That was a mistake. My apologies. I meant to thank your edit but I guess I somehow reverted it as well. Merry Christmas and Happy new year!  SmileBlueJay97  talk  15:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@SmileBlueJay97: I figured it must be a mistake since I also got your thanks. Merry Christmas to you! --Random86 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

List of members

I think Drmies has a point, if you look at Backstreet Boys or One Direction, none of those articles lists out the members the way Kpop does. Is there an argument regarding Kpop culture for this? But there is no reliable sources on group position either. Oh man, I don't know what is right and what is wrong now.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I probably still disagree with Drmies on this. I didn't look at every band's article, but some are like Little Mix where the birth dates are included (One Direction used to be like that too). When the members all have their own page this isn't necessary. If the group's official website is not a reliable enough source for birth dates, the members' own articles can't have a birth date either, if you think about it. I don't understand this argument because even if a third-party reliable source published K-pop idols' birth dates, the original source is still the entertainment company. For group positions, most of the time there isn't a source (except for the few who have it on the official website).
Another thing—I definitely think the members' Hangul names should be included. I think this is important because the Hangul name is the actual name, and there are so many ways names are romanized you can't always tell which name it is from the romanization. For example, Yuna could be 연아 or 윤아. --Random86 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I overlooked the fact that A Pink members' articles are in the process of deletion. So yes, if the members don't have their own articles, we can definitely make the argument that we need to indicate the Hangul/Romanization variations. Drmies just did not understand it. But do we have to rethink for those that do have their own articles though?
And is there a guideline for birthdates somewhere? Because I think I saw some bands with birthdates and some don't, but the latter are probably just the less well-known ones. You're right about the use of reliable sources. The information all comes from the agency anyways. I was thinking what can be an alternative source, and the only thing that came to my mind was Naver, but I don't know if we can actually call that the reliable alternative or not. There are not a lot of sources for these K-pop artists.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You know what Random86, with the kind of participation in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, we'll never get anywhere.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, butting in here. :) I also think the member tables are unneeded and could be better written as prose. No comment on birthdays, as it's a mess as you've already covered (and in my opinion, not very important). All information comes from the agency, regardless of source like Naver. Some people (Kim Junsu of JYJ, Lee Minwoo of Shinhwa) have publicly stated their birthdays and why they don't match the agency but other than that... yeah. Regarding hangul, it's standard for articles on Koreans so surely it should be included for members also, but in prose. And yeah, it's totally essential for knowing how most names are pronounced. Member positions are a joke and unencylcopedic-ish, as none of them are dividing things up by vocal role as non-Korean vocal groups do (bass, tenor, etc). They also cause never-ending fights on talk pages. I say get rid of them entirely unless they are music roles. This article List of Got7 members has decently-done member information, though why it's on a page of its own is totally beyond me. Sigh.
I agree the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture is going nowhere. We can't even get down to business and research/hash out a list of say, notable awards, because other editors are at total odds with things. I tried to invite in people who seem to do a decent bit of editing and didn't sound like lunatics, but they've gotten very emotional and are taking this all personally. I don't know the way to get more editors to see this as an unemotional issue and in the larger Wikipedia context. Already people are putting the Eat Your Kimichi and other fan awards back into the lists from which I removed them, one so many time I can no longer revert him/her without violating 3RR. No one reads the article talk pages or apparently their user talk pages, and when they do they freaking misquote other editors (me, LOL). Grrr.
I just wish there was some way for editors from other areas, who aren't totally steeped in kpop, to give opinions. As with any field (again, I'm reminded of anime a few years ago), people who are passionately into it can rarely think objectively. :/ Anime editors finally saw the wisdom of using other websites for their minutiae; for instance, the Naruto wiki is extremely detailed while Naruto stuff on Wikipedia has been (and is being) dialed back to an appropriate level. I was also wondering if comparing things to Korean Wikepedia could be of use? Anyway, carry on! Shinyang-i (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i, let me know which articles you are getting reverts on, so I can add them to my watchlist. I agree that other editors (who aren't K-pop fans) need to get involved. So many K-pop editors just don't get what Wikipedia is and isn't. Maybe you could ask for help from WP:POPMUSIC? I'm not sure how active it is, but it could be worth a try. --Random86 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The worst is List of awards and nominations received by Got7. Also List of awards and nominations received by Winner - those groups will have the same editor base, likely. Also Block B, but it looks like they've stopped reverting now. I'm working on an organized awards discussion right now, to hopefully produce a "best practices" list that can be pointed to. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i I have been thinking about this, if we, "the supposed K-pop experts", cannot even give these articles a nice clean now; eventually, when those other editors who have no knowledge of Kpop whatsoever, they see a bunch of redundant information with only a few (or none) reliable sources; they are just going to delete everything and we will all be "doomed" because we don't really know what information to put back and what not to. I am not even an A Pink fan, but I had to find a reference myself to claim that their song "topped the chart". I'm thinking about nominating those "List of Endorsements" articles up for deletion, I don't think discussion will lead anywhere. What do you two think? There is one for GG and one for f(x). Anymore out there? And wow...the "List of awards" for Winners and Got7 are so attractive.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

List of endorsement articles must have sprung up because they were too long for the main articles. To me that's a sign the lists are just too full of unneeded info. As for AFD, go for it! I find it a sign of bad things when groups that literally just debuted have won enough awards to merit articles about it. Korea just has too many crap awards these days. I just finished a big writeup on that subject for comment. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex I just looked at WP:UNSOURCED, and I think I'm going to go through a bunch of K-pop articles and tag them with refimprove and unreliable sources. This will make it more clear how serious the problem is. There are probably lots of articles that could be nominated for deletion. Even if it doesn't go anywhere, it's worth a try to force a discussion. Shinyang-i, where is the writeup? --Random86 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i, I nominated both endorsement pages for deletion. If you see more pages that can be deleted, I can help so let me know. I am staying away from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture for now.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex I'm not comfortable taking any steps for now. That one guy, who claims to have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, has devolved into a troll, and now he's on my talk page. I'm so irritated. This is such a catch 22: issues should be discussed by many editors in a centralized place and consensus reached, but it's impossible to have a discussion with many editors because too many of them get emotional and disruptive. Maybe we can just carry on with our discussion there and totally ignore his non-productive/disruptive comments? If he starts addressing the actual discussion than we can respond to him. I really don't want to abandon that place because otherwise what do we have to point to for best practice standards? How can we claim consensus was reached in a public discussion? How can we get (productive) opinions from a diverse set of editors? Now I really see why so many kpop editors have quit or gone dormant. ARGH! I am, meanwhile, trying to visit other wikiprojects of interest to see what kind of standards they might have (WP lists, WP pop music, etc)...no luck so far. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i He clearly looks like a biased fan. If he gets out of hand, we can report him to an admin. He wanted me to be banned once, because I came in and cleaned out his 2PM's articles. Look above and you know why.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i: He only has 1,608 edits, so he can't have been actively editing for 10 years. I'm really impressed with how civil and professional you've been, by the way. It seems like K-pop is the Wild West of Wikipedia. Every once in a while, Drmies will come in and make major edits on a few pages, but it doesn't have a lasting impact because there aren't enough experienced Wikipedians involved. That's the impression I'm getting, anyway. --Random86 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i, I think I will have to come into every single article and seriously trim stuff down. I don't care if I'll get hate for it. The hard part is that sometimes the paragraphs get so wordy that I get lost in the middle and have no idea what I'm reading, and I don't want to trim down any "important" thing either. You can help with copyediting, Random86.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TerryAlex, I think that's a good idea. Once things are trimmed down it's easier to copy edit anyway. If something important gets taken out it can always be added back. --Random86 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i I've been doing that spontaneously, but from now I will try to trim down at least a couple of sections per day. It will take a while, but at least we have to start from somewhere.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Kpop discussion

But you are all doing a discussion without a consensus concerning kpop users. Wikipedia requires a consensus/Vote to determine any restructuring of any article. You have not discussed any article on your or any talk pages! Therefore, your entre pages are moot and should be deleted! Mikepellerintalk 07:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mikepellerin I'm still not understanding what you are saying. But, if you resort to personal attacks again I'm going to have to report you. --Random86 (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines

Shinyang-i Hey Random86, do you know the guidelines to songs, variety shows, albums and stuff, because I looked through f(x) article, and clicked on the song "La Cha Ta", that article even had a "Teasers" section.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd check the Wikprojects for songs and albums. They will at least have links to the manuals of style. I do know that teasers are absolutely not allowed, as they violate copyright and are considered excessive promotion. I've seen the policy before...but where I don't know. Variety shows seem to fall under the television working group but, to quote one of us (forgot who!), it seems to be the Wild Wild West of Wikpedia. I've spent hours scouring Wikipedia in search of some definitive information and damn is it hard work! Read the talk pages of the policies and working groups, as well as the archives. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i That article looks like something that can be nominated for deletion though, it does not really have any information; the "Music Video" section to me is useless; even after a hundred times reading such description, I still cannot imagine what the actual MV looks like. I edit some songs/albums articles here and there, but now I seriously think that a lot of these similar articles can be deleted as well.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, arguing notability against a song is hard because the requirements are so low and, as I mentioned elsewhere, everything that gets released in Korea also charts in Korea, making it "notable" by Wikipedia standards. I can't imagine the music video is meant to include much details - what do the song policies say? I have not had much experience with them.
And, buddy, I'm finding 99% of kpop articles do not really have any information...just lines upon lines of promotion. Gah, I'm so frustrated. I mean, even the ones that don't initially look like flagrant policy-violators are full of unsourced, "kpop is a big happy family", promotional, unencyclopedic garbage, all from gossip and self-promotional sites. Some groups' entire articles are day-by-day descriptions leading up to the release of their one and only flop-of-a-song, plus a table with all the members' birthdays and and bust sizes and whatever other non-notable crap they can shoehorn in there. (Okay, I lied about the bust size...it just feels that way.) Argh, I want to scream! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i But at least have some chart information, that would be more acceptable. Every teaser news is included. Even the exact time of the release (at 5PM KST) is included. But there is no other relevant information. On a serious note though, it reflects what kind of audience K-pop is commercializing on. It's the sad truth. And that is why it's hard to argue with them.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex: Check out WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG. Shinyang-i, you are raising some good points about reliable sources. I am going out of town for Christmas and won't have a computer so I probably won't be on here much until Dec 27. --Random86 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Have a good trip and Merry Christmas!--TerryAlex (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy holidays and safe travels, Random86! We'll try not to burn the place down in your absence! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New sources

I added new sources for the Shinee's page because allkpop is, like you said, unreliable. If you have time please look over the sources again, I mainly used Korean sites and Mwave's site (which I think is quite reliable because they add their own sources).

I also wonder if the members table should be removed? All of the members have their own page, it's really unnecessary. Btw. I don't have an account but I try to help anyway. This is wikipedia and the most Kpop articles have unreliable sources, I try to help but my Korean isn't as good as it should be so I can't always find the right sources from Korean websites but I still try. --93.128.38.16 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A Pink

Sorry for bothering you too much these days. Sonflower asked me about the issue, I realized we have not gotten it resolved yet. I can't give in to that issue though. Even Dr.K. said it was nonsense. Anyways, I feel like there must be a better way that we can do the album/song articles, right now it's pretty much redundant & not-much information but it gets repetitive over and over again. Oh well...--TerryAlex (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

TerryAlex and Sonflower0210, either of you can remove the plagiarism accusations from A Pink. I don't want to do it because I don't want to be involved if other editors disagree. I also saw what happened with "Gee", but since that song was so popular it probably should have its own article. We can talk about song/album article issues more later. :) --Random86 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The song is popular, but it is so badly written, that it frustrated me. I still think my revision was more accurate though. Oh well. If you have more idea, let me know. It's like there is an article for every song out there, but 90% it's a "5-sentence" article, you know what I mean? @Sonflower0210:, just remove the issue and see what happens. I removed so much stuff these days, that I don't want to do it either, I will just receive more "unpleasant" messages on my talk page :)--TerryAlex (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok guys, I'll remove it and let's see what happens. Thanks :)--Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

2NE1

Hey, so how exactly do i claim the photo to be mine, if i edited it. Because the ones on Park Bom is a really old picture along with 2NE1, it should be current. So new people can see how they look like right now instead of 5 years from now. Plus... They're not the best pictures. I feel as if they are using the bad pictures. Compare to other groups they have nice ones. hD's looking ones.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKJACKXXX2121 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

BLACKJACKXXX2121, the photos are not yours unless you took them yourself. The ones you uploaded belong to YG Entertainment. Editing them does not make them yours. Other groups have newer pictures because people took pictures at performances/fanmeetings and uploaded them to the internet with a Creative Commons license. --Random86 (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We Got Married redux

Someone resurrected those 'We Got Married' couples-by-season and couples episodes listing articles. It appears there were insufficient comments to warrant deletions. So, if you're interested... ^_^

Member timeline

Is that even needed? I removed it for Nine Muses, someone just reverted back, but I want to hear from you first before I remove it again.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All these are socks of LTA abuser Vgleer. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qmptsk. If these attacks persist you should go to RFPP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex, timelines are sometimes used for groups who have had a lot of member changes. I think they can be useful, but Nine Muses' was confusing because of the pre-debut parts. Another example is After School (band)#Timeline. I'm going to start a discussion on member sections, and this can be part of it. --Random86 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Since we are cutting down the member section to only "list", I think it is more sufficient that we do something like this. Do you think this looks better?
  • Member A - Hangul name (2004-2006)
  • Member B - Hangul name (2006-2009)
I won't reply to the project page much, but be sure that I am watching it :) --TerryAlex (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex What about this:
  • Kahi (가희; 2009–2012)
Or this:
  • Kahi (가희), 2009–2012 --Random86 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the 2nd one better --TerryAlex (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the second one is better as well. --Random86 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hangul names

  • Random, this is fair and I won't revert that. I suggest this is also something that can be hashed out on one of the project pages--stage name or real name plus Hangul name, sure. BTW, I got criticized by Mikepellerin on my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#Got_7_Removal--you may be interested in the short analysis I made of Got7-related articles, where the madness is about as real as for the We Got Married stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Drmies I would start a discussion on the project talk page, but I'm not sure it would go anywhere without an explanation about why birth names and dates (and thus, the tables) are unnecessary. I personally don't think the official websites are unreliable sources for this information (see the first few posts on List of members above). Is there another reason why it is unnecessary, or goes against WP policy/consensus? The K-pop group pages should be consistent, so I want to get this right. Thanks for your help. --Random86 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There isn't a single place on Wikipedia where such lists have anything but name and instrument. At best you find a range of dates for when they were in a band. You never find birthdates--and of course you never find official colors, zodiac signs, blood types, and names in all these different spellings. Really, why is a birth date even necessary? Why would that be more relevant than penis size or mother's maiden name? Answer: only in a ageist industry, and we shouldn't be playing along with that. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Drmies, I mostly wanted something definitive to be able to point the other users to so it won't turn into a huge edit war. I have a feeling they won't accept that answer, so I guess I'll just send them to you. ;) --Random86 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, I'd leave out the penis size, then, or breast size (did you see those photos from that plastic surgery clinic in South Korea?). Seriously, articles on Wikipedia don't have this is pretty much the answer. Look at any decent article on a band: Motörhead#Members, Radiohead#Band_members. Or check out Yes_(band)#Personnel--an article where a member timeline is warranted. I think the general idea is that band members play instruments and do things, and in K-pop, let's face it, it doesn't work that way, it seems: looks and age are important. FWIW, I have no doubt that SM and YJP and whatnot would have no problem with lying about a person's age if it was of benefit to them, but that's by the by. The long and short of it is that those sources are not independent and not reliable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Drmies, thanks for the example articles. I see what you mean now. --Random86 (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Sure thing. I actually ran into a K-pop GA the other day, though I forgot what it was called--see if you recognize it on Wikipedia:Good articles/Music. I think it may not have had a member section at all. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Since we are deleting the member table, I think this template can also be deleted Template:K-pop group members table. Just want to let you know. :) --TerryAlex (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies and (Random86), please input your opinion on Talk:Girls' Generation#Member section. I am avoiding discussion. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I know Random86 is currently in the process of deleting the member sections for every group.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for pointing it out. I'm not really good at this whole add the sources correctly thing, I'm just good at finding them. I'll try to do it right from now on but I can't speak Korean so I'm not sure if I'll get it right. Would the source for this be Yonhap News? Or smth like that? It's written at the beneath the article but I'm not sure. Btw. is soompi reliable? I mean I know they are most of the time but I think they don't link their own sources which I think is a problem.--77.11.129.54 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

77.11.129.54: Yes, 연합뉴스 is Yonhap News. For Nate, the source is listed below the headline. If you copy and paste the name into Google Translate, it will show a rough romanization (and a translation, but it isn't always accurate). Soompi is not considered a reliable source by WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. We are currently discussing reliable sources and other K-pop article issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture if you'd like to participate. --Random86 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards

You know the awards articles with all the "total won" and "total nominations". Is that even needed? Is that number even accurate? Because I was going to remove some non-notable awards, but don't want to mess that number up if I remove something. I know I bother you a lot, but it's just easier to talk to someone first. It's the same format for every article, isn't it? I never looked at these articles much and I don't want to create an edit war either. --TerryAlex (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: If you remove awards, you also have to remove it from the infobox and change the totals. Sometimes people add/remove awards without updating the infobox so the numbers get off. --Random86 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86 and TerryAlex: I ran into that...did a bunch of edits then realized I had to update the stupid infobox too, and the totals in the infobox, and sometimes totals in the prose. I hate them with a passion. However, we maybe should look at the relevant infobox documentation for guidance. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: Seriously, we need to ax that too....I doubt the number is accurate.
Okay, serious question, I want to hear from you two. Is it really necessary to indicate the Korean/Japanese names in the heading? [look at Girl's Generation's article] I mean, yeah, it's their name, but still, this is an English Wikipedia. Like Drmies said, why do we have three different "spellings" for basically the same thing? Isn't the infobox informative enough? I don't want to make myself look like I try to own the article and it's not a big deal obviously, but all I see is repetitive info over and over again...and it feels like I have to run here everytime to ask for you two's opinions about it. I was not the editor who removed it originally though. If you do find it necessary, then revert it back for me. "Moscow" always makes it seems like we are destroying these articles, so it's hard to argue with him.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Check MOS:KOREA, under "introduction" section. It says you're supposed to use the pronunciation but that's hard, so I'd use the hangul and then the romanization in italics, all in parentheses. No "SNSD", as that's an English fan-made name. They also probably have another name used in Japan, similar to TVXQ (Tohoshinki) and CSJH The Grace (Tenjochiki), so you could also put the Japanese kanji and its romanization in those parentheses also. One sort-of related thing I just saw on my MOS review was that hanja for Korean names should probably be removed for pretty much everyone, as there is no way to know if they're correct. Chinese transliterations of the names used in Chinese media are generally not accurate, nor are they intended to be - they're just for understandability by the Chinese readers. So if people are using Chinese media as their source, they are wrong and Wikipedia says not to use them. There is little need to ever include hanja because it's hardly ever used for names. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i:But every article does have the hanja though? Some editors even change the characters from time to time, but I don't know how accurate they are, so I hardly ever revert them back. So technically, how would you rewrite the heading for GG's article?--TerryAlex (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen hanja for individuals in a number of articles, often down in those infamous member boxes. They should all be removed and never replaced. For GG, let's see...let me look at some stuff first. Like, I know how it should look but I need to find the template. I'll get back to you. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, check out The Grace (band) for an example. In the case of that group, they actually used hanja in their name in Japan (and Korea, actually), but in the case of GG, you could do hangul and then kanji. TVXQ is a similar group (although "TVXQ!" is actually a real name for them), but their lead is done in a clunky way. When it comes to italicized romanizations, I was thinking of Japanese names, such as Hikaru Utada. I guess that isn't in the formatting for Korean names, but I'll keep looking. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i:

Girls' Generation (Korean: 소녀시대 So Nyeo Shi Dae; Japanese: 少女時代 Shōjo jidai) is a South Korean girl group formed by S.M. Entertainment in 2007.

or

Girls' Generation (Korean: 소녀시대; Japanese: 少女時代) is a South Korean girl group formed by S.M. Entertainment in 2007.

Nice. I personally like #1, but I'm not sure if it follows convention for Korean names. Either way, it's better than what's there now, and I think if you don't include the "so nyuh shi dae" someone will come along and add it. I think some of that is supposed to be Wikilinked, but ... I'm sorry I am out of ideas. I feel there's a template somewhere...can you check around MOS:KOREA a bit? However, for now I think it's a good job. It can be tweaked more later, I guess? Shinyang-i (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So you think "SNSD" should be mentioned, Random86?--TerryAlex (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TerryAlex: Maybe not. I did a quick search, and English-language third-party reliable sources use Girls' Generation, not SNSD (except Mwave, but they are in a different category). It is mostly a fan nickname. If we take SNSD out, "So Nyeo Shi Dae" should be replaced with RR (like in the infobox) or IPA. --Random86 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've seen Moscow's post, there may be enough sources to keep SNSD there. --Random86 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
My question is should we leave the "Alias" empty or should we put "So Nyeo Shi Dae" and "Shōjo jidai" (with SNSD if sourced) there? And should SNSD be mentioned in the headings or only in the infobox? Because Girls' Generation is still their only official English name, SNSD is only a nickname even if it might have sources. I mean, now that we want to put both English and Korean names together, should it look more "professional" not to put SNSD?--TerryAlex (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ikon

I'll totally defer to you on this, but how on earth does a group release music and yet not be considered to have "debuted"? Kpop is so, so weird. In the rest of the universe, your debut is your first release. LOL~ Thanks for fixing my error! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i: It's because of YG's shows. All the trainees competed and eventually turned into Winner and iKon. (Or something. I didn't really follow it.) In K-pop, you haven't officially debuted until your first music show performance (IIRC). --Random86 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. I still maintain kpop is weird. :P Shinyang-i (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

specialty subjects

86, i appreciate your level tone in conversation, but as my familiarity with WP policies indicate, I am a previously high contributing editor who remembers the days when "the average editor" had seven or eight areas of expertise and we were not all a bunch of article campers or topic specialists 'defending' our turfs. Now your new specialist type of editor is highly appreciated to the project, but if the article is simultaneously undergoing AfD and an edit reversion, I think it would appropriate for you not to turn this into a manichean struggle of black and white. I write about military history, i vote on lobbying groups in D.C., I contribute to Kpop in my editing history. This is why it might be possible to call it tiresome to deal with 'otaku' or 'specialist' or 'anime' subcultures who are spending 7-8 hours/day on the internet 'defending' what is their topic. Thanks, and I hope this helps communicate what WP used to be in 2009. -09:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)

Augustabreeze: If you are so familiar with WP policies, why do you keep forgetting to sign your posts? I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, but it's not going to be the end of the world if Park Cho-rong is deleted. --Random86 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The specific problem is that you are (1) removing links from the article, and then (2) voting to delete on the AfD. Either one by itself is appropriate, but it is inappropriate to eviscerate an article, and then use that evisceration as a justification for a delete in an AfD. The third more general problem with your editing is that you have a single-issue account. These are not necessarily contributory to WP as a whole, as the community evolves into a group of "topic campers" who "defend their articles rather than contribute to a wide variety of AfDs and discussions, and edits project-wide. Thank you -Augustabreeze (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Augustabreeze: I already explained why I removed the links. If you want those references included, write something in the article that is related to the content of the news articles. Furthermore, I voted to delete the article before you added those links. There is nothing inherently wrong with primarily editing K-pop articles, especially since they need a lot of cleanup. If you still have a problem with my editing, please take it somewhere else because that's all I'm going to say. --Random86 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! There are a bunch of kpop-related AFDs that have been listed in the last few days. Take a look! ^_^ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Korea Shinyang-i (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaon

You do realize that it takes sales of less than 100 units to make it on the Gaon charts, right? In order to not chart, something has to go wrong with the release. It's not unheard of for a song to be released digitally but not be carried by any vendors, making it impossible for anyone to buy it. In that case, it won't chart. Point being, charting is not evidence of notability in Korea, because quite literally, normal release = charting. Anyway, I think I already got reemed pretty well on that AFD by some unhelpful individual, so I really didn't need to get publicly chastised again. I think I'm just so done with all of this. Whatever I say, someone gets angry. All I wanted to do is make things better so that wouldn't want to punch my monitor ever time I visited Wikipedia. But Wikipedia lacks the infrastructure to really make things better, and all that ever happens in arguments. I've tried to be helpful but I really can't handle it anymore. So just...think whatever you want. I don't like, but if you wanna think I do and publicly call me out for it, so be it. TT_TT Shinyang-i (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i: I wasn't trying to publicly chastise you, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Just by looking at the numbers, I can tell it takes more than 100 downloads to make it onto the Gaon Download Chart (which is a component of the Digital Chart). It takes around 17,000 to make to the bottom of the monthly chart. I understand why you're frustrated with Wikipedia, but I just don't see evidence of what you're saying in this instance. There are lots of rookie groups who have normal releases/promotions and their songs don't sell enough to chart. Two groups that come to mind are Lip Service and Tint (band). --Random86 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It was physical charts. It's on an article on Wikipedia. It sold 100 copies and charted. It can sell 800 and get to the top 20. Anyway, I don't care anymore. I really just have stopped caring. That MikePellerin person is attacking me again at Talk:Got7. He even types his yammering right in the middle of my comments, which I know is a flagrant violation of policy. His edit summary is "tsk tsk, for shame!". Why am I the one these people come after? Why me? I just don't get him, he's so angry, so horrible. I've tried so hard to be nice to him, to welcome his contributions, but he never makes any, all he does is yell and make personal attacks. I just don't get it, why are people so hateful over freaking kpop?! The whole reason I started wanting to edit some of these articles is because I was reading something on Wikipedia, saw something absolutely asinine, and I got pissed because while I was reading complete and utter garbage, I was simultaneously being asked to donate money to keep the thing running. I was like, who in their right mind would willingly financially support such a crapheap? So I decided to try to de-crap it, and now I spend most of my time fighting trolls. Ugh, I'm so sorry to unload this all on you. I'm just so done with all this. I had zero emotional reaction to any of this until now, and it's all coming out at once. But yeah, I don't think I can keep doing this unless some outside support comes in. It's just too pointless; let Wikipedia become 99% kpop crap, what do I care. Sigh. :( Shinyang-i (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Shinyang-i: I have noticed that it seems like all physical albums chart. But you mentioned digital singles so I thought you meant those as well. I'm on my phone right now so I can't do a long reply, but don't let that user get to you (I know it's hard). Dr.K. and Drmies are hated by quite a few K-pop fans on Wikipedia; there was even an attack website at one point. Feel free to take a break if you need to. --Random86 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Random86/Archive_1&oldid=1141982581"