Talk:Kim's Convenience

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

Research To Consider[edit]

You should consider looking at this document for research purpose which projects how Children are expect to take over adult responsibilities but they never get rewarded and when they grow up, for example Janet has been working at the store for the past 10 years but she never get rewarded Mr.Kim thinks that because he pays tuition for Janet,buys her food etc(Season 1 Episode 10), she should work with no pay at the store.

Park, Lisa Sun-Hee. “Between Adulthood and Childhood: The Boundary Work of Immigrant Entrepreneurial Children.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, vol. 45, 2001, pp. 114–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41035559. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Street17 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 Announced[edit]

Season 3 has been announced! But I don't know what citation style Wikipedia uses, and I'm a little too lazy to find everything and do all the editing. http://www.cbc.ca/kimsconvenience/blog/season-3-of-kims-convenience-has-been-officially-announced 2001:56A:F34B:B00:5129:E6EB:FCC0:8385 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting location, literally[edit]

At first I thought this was vandalism. I realize it was a good faith edit, but I'm inclined to say this does not belong in the article:

On January 8, 2017, an individual with fatal gunshot wounds was found lying in front of 252 Queen East.

That is to say, six months after the show was filmed. I get that this happened where the show was filmed, but as I said in my edit, I fail to see what relevance it has to an article about the show, or its production. It didn't happen during production, it did not happen because of the show or because of someone involved in the show. The sentence is jarring and unpointed. If someone were filming a show about a fictional library in Winnipeg last year and they chose the Millennial Library, we would not bring up the fact that someone recently jumped to their death there, because, while it's sad, it's just not relevant and for that reason not notable. Lots of things happen in neighbourhoods where people make movies. We don't list every act of violence that happens to take place in their immediate vicinity--can you imagine if that was the rule on the set of Chicago Hope? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your edit and you're right. If there were some actual substantive connection to the production of Kim's Convenience, then it would be relevant to note here — but merely happening outside a location that the show happens to use in its establishing shots is just WP:TRIVIA, not a substantive connection. And even the reference doesn't actually make any substantive mention of the show — it just (unfortunately) happens to have the "Kim's Convenience" sign visible in the photograph, without commenting on the fact in any way whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the play as proposed, but no consensus to move the TV series to the base title, resulting in the creation of a disambiguation page at Kim's Convenience until such time as a consensus is reached on a primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 01:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– There's a rational explanation for why the articles are located where they are, in that the play already had an article before its television series adaptation even existed at all — but now that the television series exists and is quite successful in its own right, it is much more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for most readers. The series already outstrips the play more than tenfold in pageview stats, at 8,102 pageviews for the TV series so far this year to just 650 for the play, even before you account for the fact that some portion of the play's pageviews were probably also people who really wanted the television series and had to two-step their way through the hatnote. So the television series should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the plain name with the play at a disambiguated title, rather than vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose first, support second - Disambig both and replace primary with a DAB, because one has page views temporarily while the show is active and neither has a proven long-term significance (but leaning play as the namesake). We should arrange like this, so its easy to find misplaced links and to accurately gauge future page views. After the show concludes, it'll be helpful for determining how to handle the arrangement long-term. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The television series' page views may drop somewhat once the television series is no longer current, but for a hit television series which people are going to remember, they're never going to drop below the play's page views — whether they should or not, the general public simply doesn't follow theatre as much as it does film and television, so the play is never going to be the dominant topic. And which entity had the name first is not relevant to our PRIMARYTOPIC determinations, either — a thing does not get primary topic rights over a more popular topic just because it came first and the more famous topic was an adaptation of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Netoholic @ 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nyope. Plain facts as they lay today. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, support second – As per Netoholic... the TV series is likely enjoying views because of WP:RECENTISM. —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, support second per above users. Page view stats are giving undue weight to WP:RECENTISM from the TV series being a currently-airing show. —Lowellian (reply) 01:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both moves pageview stats show the TV series has been the clear primary since October 2016, and most readers are looking for it. Peaks for the play match corresponding peaks for the TV seasons (Oct 2016 & 2017, and March 2018 reruns when it was renewed for a third season) suggesting readers may be going to the wrong article. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed. The TV series is now the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 June 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– It's been a little over a year since the last move discussion (directly above this on the article talk page), which resulted in the play of the same name being moved from the primary → Kim's Convenience (play) and the primary being made into a dab page. Pageview statistics (all time & since the move) show that the TV series is even more dominant. Excluding some outlier days immediately following the last move, the TV show's lowest points are 3× higher than the play's high points for the last year, and for the whole year the TV series received 16× more views than the play. The main objection to this proposal last year was WP:RECENTISM (which I felt was misapplied; that policy explanation is about a change from the established name by recent sources, not recent shifts in readership), but I don't see how a fringe festival and off-Broadway play is going to get the same attention over time as a popular TV show. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Nothing has changed since the last RM. TV shows have high page views naturally while they are airing, but drop off quite a lot after that. I am confident that all readers are able to find the article where it is, and that in several years we can look at this more objectively. Its far better, in the meantime, that we encourage editors to link to disambiguated titles. -- Netoholic @ 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The show is available internationally on Netflix and has now been renewed for a fourth season. I think it'll remain in the public eye and thus be the main search topic under this title for many years to come. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only reason I can imagine for opposing this would be if the play were so well established (like A Doll's House or Macbeth) such that it would be studied in schools, there'd've been a long production history, etc., etc. Even if that happens someday, we'll simply switch it back. Fact is, for most people looking the title up at this time and for the time being, the show is what they're looking for, and they do not know the play even exists. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a point of comparison, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) was similarly overshadowed very quickly by the TV series which followed it, and that was a feature film (with Donald Sutherland...). Had Wikipedia existed in the late Nineties or early Noughties, we'd not have waited years and years dithering over which one was the most likely target of an online search. There is no need to wait until we are "more objective". Facts are facts, per the search data above. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but even better move the TV series to the base name and delete the disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support television series as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but just delete the disambiguation page rather than hanging onto it with "(disambiguation)" affixed to it. One significant thing that has changed since the first discussion is that this is no longer a show that's exclusively known in Canada — it's distributed beyond Canada on Netflix now, which means that it has much broader international awareness than it did a year ago, which is not going to fade when the show ceases production. If the play had been a Tony Award winning Broadway production, I'd be more convinced that there was a problem here — but considering that we're talking about a play whose peak notability claim is the much more modestly notable Soulpepper Theatre Company, Netflix beats Soulpepper even more squarely than the CBC does. But in a TWODABS situation we don't need to keep a disambiguated dab page — the play can just keep the existing hatnote. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quick Question[edit]

Who was the girl from the "Game Night" episode (I think) of Season 2 who flirts with Jung briefly? Was that Dree (I remembered that she was White, haha)? And if so, then should we include that in her description on this page - or not necessarily? --100.35.178.134 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant in the episode "House Guest". --100.35.178.134 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I just found out that it was Jung's temporary girlfriend, Jen (portrayed by Morgan Kohan). Should we include her description in this page - or is that unnecessary (in which case, we only include a character's description on this page, if he/she appears in a minimum of three or four episodes throughout the entire show)? --100.35.178.134 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim%27s_Convenience&oldid=1207980589"