Talk:Peek-a-Boo (Red Velvet song)

"dual concept"

Why exactly is a link to a section of their article to better explain to readers a section in this article being removed? Lonedirewolf 07:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't the intention. My intention was to stop you removing the commented-out message that precedes the first sentence in the section to avoid users (including yourself) to stop re-adding a whole backstory for the group that isn't pertinent to this specific song. Ss112 07:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It is for the Background when the section itself explains it and since the album (like most of their albums) even the song, are directly related to it, it is explained. I already suggested that you look at all of their articles including the articles this particular section used as references. Its intention is not to post a 'backstory' for the group, but the background of the song and its album. Even Peek-a-Boo's articles about its release mention it. Almost every single one.

If it wasn't your intention to remove the link like you said in my talk page, then I'm restoring it.Lonedirewolf 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And I bet you realised after you wrote this I didn't actually remove the link in my subsequent edit, hence why I didn't directly revert you. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason and I'm quite sure you worked on a number of their other articles yourself. "Look at what I did on these other articles!" It doesn't matter. It shouldn't be on those either. It's not necessary to explain on all their articles. I'm not continuing this debate. It doesn't need to be here and evidently more than one user disagrees with its inclusion (as I didn't reword the Background section to begin with), so don't restore it because that will be disruptive. Get WP:CONSENSUS. Ask for input from other editors, because two editors who disagree does not a consensus make. Thank you. Ss112 07:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, from the title of this section, my main concern is the link. If you're done, then good. Lastly, I asked you to find their articles. To find news articles. Meaning, I have no intention of pointing you to specific articles that mention them. Just to show you the difference. Please avoid drawing conclusions about a person's actions next time. I noticed you've used the 'fan' card several times already as well. Good day.Lonedirewolf 08:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't need or want to look at external sources that talk about the song. Why is that necessary? What news sources do is not necessarily what is best for Wikipedia. You also did mention Red Velvet's other articles on Wikipedia and what is on those. You have worked on plenty of those (as evidenced by looking at their history and your contributions) and probably added links on them to the artistry section of the band's article as well. What is on those is not a concern here, so doesn't even need to be brought up because it's not and should not be seen as a precedent. Just because I didn't have an issue with including it on this article doesn't mean I think it's essential for all their articles. Please avoid edit warring in any situation next time. Ss112 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To point out why it needed to be explained in the article? Which is the original concern? You're also questioning its importance. If I didn't find sources that mention them which also had statements their company and members directly made about it then I wouldn't include them. Like I said, I just wanted to show you the difference to better understand why I included them. You've also mentioned you've contributed to those so I'm sure you've seen some. If you personally find it unnecessary, I understand, but my apologies, I can't exactly find an article with your opinion to use as a reference.

I also suggest you look at articles of their songs I've edited and see for yourself that if the sources don't mention it, it is nowhere in that specific article.Lonedirewolf 08:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)