Talk:Red Velvet (group)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

About Red Velvet members hanjia birth name

On THE STAR interview, Red Velvet members write their hanjia birth name.

  • Irene is 裴柱現[1].
  • Seul Gi is 姜슬기[2]. 슬기 is not hanja, but chinese media call her 姜澀琪(transcription).
  • Wendy is 孫承歡, but it is a transcription, we can not confirmed her hanja birth name. Because here has not write her hanjia birth name.
  • Joy is 朴秀英[3].

--Sandylee215 (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

I understand the 'Happiness' MV incident being included because it did make headlines at the time, but Wendy's? Are we to include all the criticisms about artists in 'controversies' sections now? Because there's a lot of articles I can think of that's gonna be a lot longer than they are right now. Lonedirewolf 01:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't keep up with a lot of Red Velvet news at the moment, so I don't know how important is that incident, but if you want to keep, then I suggest moving it to her article instead.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's also hardly important even if it was moved to the artist's page. I don't think it's enough to warrant a section, like most 'criticisms' about other artists or people for that matter.Lonedirewolf 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I just read the article, and I do agree that it is not important to keep. If no one objects, I think we can take it out.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually object. I have thought that the incident would be more relevant on her own page, but given the context idk. But this is not just a "criticism." this is not just "gee I don't like how she sings." this is a documented incident, which was reported on negatively in media which I think bonafides the fact that it is a controversy. i think it is good to have on the page to maintain a neutral point of view, because white-washing discredits the fact that the controversy was legitimate.Asdklf; (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If it is kept, I think it should be on Wendy's page. It is more about her than Red Velvet. --Random86 (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's important to keep. This was only discussed on gossip sites like bossip and reddit.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I added another independent source. Asdklf; (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
My opinion: looking at it from a long-term perspective, nobody is going to care about this in a few-month time, and down the line Wendy will probably look back and be like, "Oh I shouldn't have said it like that". I'm sure she did not mean it in a racist way. --TerryAlex (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel that sort sentiment is presumptuous. I am not going to judge what she did or did not mean, this is a verifiable controversy and it being on the page isn't to remind her of its occurrence, it is to document that this was a controversy and did occur. like people care. i care that it occurred but moreover i object to its deletion because it was documented and is thus verifiable. does that make sense? Asdklf; (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
To add, I'm more concerned that this section is just going to be a list of controversies (which if I remember correctly, is actually discouraged by wikipedia) Now, if this will stay on either page, then is it also proper to include these incidents in the artists pages? A racism controversy section for Min, and an alleged plagiarism section for APink, who had another plagiarism issue before. Not only were these covered by media, but unlike this issue, statements from the companies were also released. (Would also like to add these.)Lonedirewolf 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I am totally up for that. I was wondering why Taeyeon's racist remarks weren't covered. I think the absence of these incidents skews the neutral point of view. wikipedia should correctly document people's histories Asdklf; (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That incident had an allkpop article but I can't seem to find it and I haven't come across any Korean articles about it either. Shall we vote then? If people think this is relevant enough for the artist's page, then I will also edit the other articles and create the controversies sections for the same reason. (By the way, has there been a discussion regarding controversies on articles? I really want to be clear on what to include in these articles) Regarding this matter, I'm referring to this, and I'd also like to hear your opinions.Lonedirewolf 01:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a criticism section for Crayon Pop because I thought the criticisms/controversies should to be included and they didn't fit into the narrative of the rest of the article. In this case, the incidents were all discussed in Korean media and the company responded to each incident, so the section has a balanced point of view. Before I expanded this section, it consisted of one negative sentence that kept getting deleted and restored.--Random86 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For Primary I did a separate section but for Zico it just got incorporated into the biography naturally Asdklf; (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For me, when I edit Wikipedia, I always like to look at the bigger picture and in a long-term perspective, I think not everything (even controversies) is necessary to be included on here. I understand that "Happiness" MV was a big deal, but I see this Wendy's incident (and possibly some other ones) as something trivial, and not significant in the long run. Just want to note that I'm not a RV's fan, and I do try to see this from a neutral point of view. --TerryAlex (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the incident with Wendy as being very significant in the long run, but don't think it should necessarily be deleted. I can see both sides with the Wendy incident. With other controversies it's hard to say whether they are significant or not. Obviously, not every "controversy" belongs on Wikipedia. In many cases, the inclusion of criticism/controversy enhances the article for me as a reader. --Random86 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is how I see it, if it's something as controversial as Paula Dean, then of course it has to be included; but I'm sure celebrities (especially Western ones) make racist remarks all the time, and not every single one of them needs to be included on Wikipedia. On the other hand, in the APink's case, they were repeatedly accused for a few times (for plagiarism), so I guess that was necessary. But if it was just a one-time thing, then I think it would not have been necessary either.
For me, if it's significant, then we can keep it; if it's not, then just remove it.--TerryAlex (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean now and I agree. --Random86 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, looking at it I do too. About A Pink as well. I think perhaps if another incident happened we could put it back. Or if in the future a 'Public image' section would be made for her, we could include that. Lonedirewolf 23:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why So Serious

I have removed the part of Wendy being part of Shinee's WSS MV. There is no source for this information, you also don't see her face. Until someone finds a reliable source please don't add it again.--46.114.152.81 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Red Velvet (band)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Red Velvet (band)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gaondigital":

  • From Amber Liu (singer):
    • "2015년 08주차 Download Chart". Gaon Chart (in Korean). Korea Music Content Industry Association. Retrieved February 23, 2015.
    • "2015년 09주차 Download Chart". Gaon Chart (in Korean). Korea Music Content Industry Association. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
  • From Lovelyz: "Gaon Digital Chart". Gaon Chart (in Korean). Korea Music Content Industry Association. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
  • From At Gwanghwamun: "2014년 47주차 Digital Chart". Gaon Chart (in Korean). Korea Music Content Industry Association. Retrieved November 19, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Be Natural

This short article has no reliable secondary sources. WP:NSONG mandates that a song is only notable if it has generated significant discussion (not just mentions) in reliable secondary sources. That doesn't appear to be the case here. WP:SONGS says most songs don't merit separate articles, even if notable, because there is rarely enough non-trivial information to fill up a good-length article. So let's just add what's in this article to the group's article instead. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong Merge: per above, there is little notable information within the article not already described on the main page.Asdklf; (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree, and just performed the merge. Random86 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Happiness (Red Velvet song)

This article contains little information, and what's here can easily be incorporated in the Red Velvet (band) article. Per WP:SONGS, most songs don't merit their own articles, and per WP:NSONGS, a song is notable only if it has generated significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. Based on the article's sourcing, that does not appear to be the case here. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with this merge as well, so I merged them. There was really only a paragraph's worth of prose. Random86 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

I've expanded this article's lead section in response to the cleanup template. If there is anything I need to change, fix, or add, please let me know. Katzenlibrary (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bae Irene, Kang Seul-gi, Wendy Son

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge (in 2014, but discussion was never archived). Random86 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Their notability are questionable. Even if notable per WP:N, independence from Red Velvet is currently nonexistent.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  07:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge - I agree with the above statement and would like to add that their involvement with SM does not immediately connotate separate, individual notability, though it is probable they will eventually achieve such distinction, we just can't anticipate it. Just WP:TOOSOON Asdklf; (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge: As noted by nominator and User:Asdklf;. Also, for them to have notability, they need to have activities that is OUTSIDE the group that is notable. Until then, merge them. Tibbydibby (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge: I totally agree with Tibbydibby, they need a time to have notability without the group.K34c l4m v13c t0t 09:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bae Irene, Kang Seul-gi and Park Joy are all deleted and redirected back to Red Velvet (band).  SmileBlueJay97  talk  12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Merge I agree with the orignal post.Peachywink (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Peachywink, did you mean to comment on the new merge discussion? This one is supposed to be closed. Random86 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes...that's weird. In my window when I went to respond I was on the open Irene only merge...not sure how this ended up here. 19:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Peachywink (talk)

Proposal to Merge Irene (singer) into Red Velvet (band)

It's pretty clear. I'll make the redirect, but I'll leave it for others to decide what content to ferry over. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Irene (singer) be merged into Red Velvet (band). Irene does not yet have enough individual activities to warrant her own article. Suggest that the Irene (singer) page be merged and the page marked as a place holder until Irene's activities are enough to be individually notable. Please discuss. Katzenlibrary (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Irene (singer) should be a redirect to this page. She is not notable enough yet for her own article. Random86 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree that keeping a placeholder is reasonable but she doesn't need the separate article at this time. Peachywink (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree The article is already made, I just think more editing needs to be done to include substantial information about her and her activities. I don't think it should merge because she is a notable figure and there is a lot that could be added. Joruthful (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Joruthful: You haven't explained how/why she is independently notable according to Wikipedia standards (WP:MUSBIO etc.). She does not have a solo singing or acting career yet. Random86 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge Keep a placeholder. Irene's solo activities are not enough for a full article - all she has done so far since 2014 is appear in a music video and MC for a music show for 10 months. She doesn't need a separate article at this time. I wish her drama (a web drama) does well and brings her a few good opportunities, but it didn't air yet. When her own activities become notable, only then does she warrant her own article. Elsie KR (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Elsie KR: Now I see Random86 and you are right, she doesn't really have enough solo activities to have an article yet, but when she does in the future she could have an article. A placeholder is good. Joruthful (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree Being an idol singer and host (for a year and counting) of Music Bank is notable enough.AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • AkoAyMayLobo Why is that notable enough? "Being an idol singer" means nothing if she is not independently notable. Members of all rookie girl group are idol singers, but if they don't have independent notability, they don't get articles. For entertainers, the first criteria is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Irene doesn't have that yet. Random86 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
      • But technically she has, Music Bank = one of the leading Korean television shows, and her role is "significant" being a main MC, and also her web drama (she has a leading role) will air next month, so no point of deleting article now just to re-create it in couple of months 86.58.36.235 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Reasons already stated here.Lonedirewolf 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline graph?

Is this necessary in the members section? 71.120.85.115 and 2.127.206.130 have added those graphs to pretty much "all" groups which had at least one member leaving or joining 86.58.36.145 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Filmography section

Regarding variety show appearacnes on this page AND on each of the member's pages – this has been discussed many times (most recently at Talk:Im Yoon-ah among others) and the conslusion, supported by many long-time K-Pop related stuff editors on Wikipedia (DragonFury, Random86, TerryAlex etc.), was the deletion of the content since this weekly guest apperacnes have no influence on their careers or anything, only being a regular cast member / host of the show is notable enough. However, the user Jarek1101 (obvisouly a group's fanboy, or Wikipedia:Single-purpose account as you would call it here since 90% of his edits are RV-related) keep adding those appearances back without any explanation, one of his reasons was even "unsourced can it be site with rv updates" – What? So the user wants to turn Wikipedia into a fan site to list every little non-notable thing about Red Velvet...okay. Unless a good reason for including those guest appearances (especially on members pages, group appearances on this page are somehow fine as long as the whole group appeared in the show, and not only 2 members), I will delete those appearance everytime they are added back, and leave only notable things like being a host of the show or regular cast of the show. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. List of every single guest appearances is trivial - most Kpop artists promote regularly on many shows. This isn't notable information. Evaders99 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a suggestion that users have agreed upon and is no set standard on what TV shows are "note worthy". It is also not implemented for whole of K-pop at all, so having some idols/actors with the listing of their TV credits (while others do not) shows impartiality. American celebrities who also guests on talk shows regularly list their filmography as it is-- filmography. There shouldn't be a judgement on these facts. Also, there is argument on another page about it not having sources. On Naver search engine, there are always articles that date back to early entertainment on these artists' guestings, even minor guestings have media coverage and a source under their Artist profile. There is no English counterpart to that except on Wikipedia. I think the only proper argument is that if these single guestings do not/ or do have on their careers as a whole but then that is based on the editor too and what he/she deems as "relevant". Until there is a proper consensus about this topic that is implemented or guideline on what is included, do not be the judge over what show should be vs what is not. Having that information included is not skewed or invaluable, and adds for more precise background of that artist. To you it may be invaluable, but having that list is proper information that does not have a rule against conserving it as such. Franci DB (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Its not the shows which are "not worhty", its her ROLE in the show which is "not worthy" (being one of the many guests on the show). And no, those variety guest shows doesnt add "more precise background of that artist", because majority of people will not find those long tables with variety shows worthy to even read, EXCEPT the Red Velvet fans, but Wikipedia is not a WP:Fancruft to list those appearances for fans, you can go on onehallyu.com forum or something, they will provide you with every little, tiny cameo appearance anywhere if you need that. Do you know how this list will look like in a few years, when she will have well over 50 appearances on those random shows since the Korean celebrities are attendning those show on a weekly basis? You mentioned American artists – correct, they have guest appearances listed, but thats because they are guest like once or twice per year, and the whole episode is just for them, while in Korea, a single episode of the show usually features more than one celebrity, not to mention that there are several "billions" of those Korean variety shows, so the lists are too huge if you are going to make an entry for every single appearance on TV for that person. Do you even know how the Im Yoon-ah page will look like, if you will list her every single tiny appearance on TV since 2007? Snowflake91 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I just found out this (click), so you have a "proper consensus" as you wanted, its not specifically for Korean/American/whatever artist but its the universal manual of style and guideline that should be used for such a tables, guest appearances on talk shows are neither a "filmograpy" neither are notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Velvet (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

Add back additional information about Red Velvet's concert tours and venues, as seen on the 08:41, 26 August 2018‎ edit. The reference links do not provide venues, dates, or attendance figures. Overdose127 (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources cited within the article are the same ones that were cited in the version of the article you referenced. If those reference links do not provide venues, dates, and attendance figures, that information can't be added back to the article based on those references. Please provide reliable, secondary sources that give the information you'd like to see added to the article, and your request can be considered. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:4L (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Velvet (group)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 웬디러비 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


Good but one comment

As reading this article, I was suprised that this article has many contents about Red Velvet. It is well-organized and it has a lot of information. But one thing.... the subtitle is too long so it may look dizzy. Why don't we just write the year in subtitles and make them look convenient? 웬디러비 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the nominator was blocked I think this is going to have to be a quick fail. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am Korean Wikipedian, so I don't know the exact rule of English Wikipedia. If nominator is blocked, can't this be the good article? 웬디러비 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Discography Section

I'm wondering why it was decided that the Discography section of the Red Velvet article should only list studio albums. They majority of the Red Velvet catalog is made up of EPs (there are 11 of them), so I feel that it would be appropriate to list both the reissues and extended plays in addition to the studio albums in the discography section. InredibleMrH (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

They have their own full Discography page to list everything. This is standard guidelines for Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section Evaders99 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I think that including the EPs would still follow the guidelines for Wikipedia articles. The guidelines you shared state, "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article." It goes on to explain, "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." It's important to note the words In most cases and generally. In most cases, it makes sense to only list studio albums, as they are considered an artist's "major works." Many artists only release EPs for the sake of releasing a single, remixes, B sides, etc. However, I think Red Velvet is sort of a special case. I would argue that the EPs (often officially called "mini albums") released by Red Velvet are part of their core catalogue, and thus should be considered their "major works." Moreover, if you look at the Red Velvet discography article, you can see that many of their EPs actually sold more copies than their studio albums, which to me indicates that they are just as relevant to their career as the studio albums. Let me know what you think. InredibleMrH (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@InredibleMrH: I don't think this is special case for RV because, in South Korea, idols usually have a lot of EPs. For example, if you see Twice discography, you will see that there are lots of famous songs that had been a hit at that time. EP is, yes, the core activities of idol groups in my country. And you should think about idols who had debut pre 2010s, like Wonder Girls or Girls' Generation. they had a lot of mini albums instead of EPs. so it means that not all idol groups have same characteristics in South Korea. -- Wendylove (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Velvet - Irene & Seulgi notability

Per Robert McClenon's comments on Draft:Red Velvet - Irene & Seulgi here I will start a discussion of RV-I&S's notability by going through the twelve points of WP:NMG. Per point (1) the article has been subject to "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" such as Korea JoongAng Daily, Forbes, Time, Billboard, Chosun etc. - a simple google news search produces 37,800 results in Korean and 29,400 results in English alone (of course not all are reliable). Per point (2) They have had there album, Monster, chart on Korea's major chart, Gaon, where it peaked at #2, it also charted high on Billboard's world albums chart and heatseekers album chart, and even made the UK's digital chart. As for the singles, the lead single "Monster" peaked at #8 on Gaon and #7 on Billboard world. Although the second single "Naughty" failed to chart on Gaon it did peak higher than the former on Billboard world, and as you can see both of these singles and the album have Wikipedia pages already with reasonable notability. Per point (3) I am unaware of them having a RIAK cetificate, but it seems as if it does not. Per point (4) the duo have not toured probably because of the way the Korean entertainment industry works tour wise but it could also be because of COVID-19. Per point (5) they have released only one album, so fail. Per point (6), the duo is made of of two already notable member of the parent group Red Velvet, where they have been members for six years, they have also acted (Irene) and released music as a collaborator/featured artist (Seulgi), respectively (note that they both have Wikipedia pages already because they are indeed notable). Per point (7) this one looks like a solid fail. Per point (8) the year end awards have not yet released nominations, but I am sure that they will be nominated for some major awards, but obviously this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Looks like point (9), (10) and (12) are fails as well, I am unsure about point (11) since I do not listen to South Korean radio but it is likely that "Monster" was rotated considering its high charting on Gaon.

So reviewing all of the points I just went over, it looks like they pass 3/12, which in hindsight seems like bare minimum, but it is a top 3 album on a country's major chart. And in my opinion, significant coverage, major charting and notable members is enough to make this article notable, also noting that the album, the singles and the members all already have articles. However I understand if other users consider waiting for possible award wins for further notability to be reasonable. Abdotorg (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support move to mainspace – As per WP:NMG as long as the article meets at least 1 of the 12 criteria then it's consider notable, and since it meets 3-4 (point 1, 2, 6, 11) criteria then it shouldn't be merged into this article. Furthermore, what we can do is expand on the history section and also wait for the year-end awards shows happening next month (no harm doing so since it's currently in draft mode). And fyi, we can also compare the article to Girls' Generation-Oh!GG. The only main differences is the length of the history section, other than that it's pretty similar. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 16:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I am unsure if you have misunderstood the reason for the discussion. Just to confirm: I am proposing that the Irene & Seulgi draft be moved into the mainspace. Abdotorg (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I'm fully aware of what you're saying and have since make changes from strongly oppose merge to strongly oppose merge or delete. In case, you don't get it, I support move to mainspace. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
To avoid confusion for everyone, I have decided to change from strongly oppose merge or delete to strongly support move to mainspace. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Strongly support move to mainspace As Korean, I can say that criteria 11,12 suits well. Their song was performed by SBS, KBS, MBC, which is national-wide broadcast system in South Korea. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2020

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: No consensus EN-Jungwon 11:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


Red Velvet (group) → Red Velvet – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC The other result for "Red Velvet" can be easily disambiguated on the top of the article. Google, Bing, and Duckduckgo searches all returns Red Velvet referring to the K-Pop girl group in SM Entertainment. Searches for Red Velvet are dominantly referring to the K-Pop girl group. LipaCityPH (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I think it is the same situation like BTS. -- Wendylove (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@LipaCityPH: And please add some template, so many can give their opinion. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I already added the templates just now. Thank you for the reminder! :) LipaCityPH (talk)
  • Support As per LipaCityPH, all search results from major search engine returns Red Velvet. Other Red Velvet articles (the film, play and song excluding that cake because its full name is Red Velvet Cake) is also not very notable, 1 of which is also stub article. Even though notability can't be measured using views count, all 3 articles (the film, play and song) have less than 50 views from last year to present. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 07:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Happypillsjr ✉ 17:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Happypillsjr: Where is the discussion in your argument? Are the users supposed to wonder why you strongly oppose but don't have any evidences or discussion to elaborate? LipaCityPH (talk)
  • Oppose "Red velvet" is still known as a type of cake, thus not WP:PTOPIC. HĐ (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@HĐ: If people were to be curious of the "Red velvet" as a type of cake, shouldn't that be the one displayed on the page as people search on various search engine sites such as Google, Bing, or Duckduckgo? Firstly, all the articles on the "Red Velvet" page are not notable enough, including the Red velvet cake. Red Velvet cake will only be appearing on the search engine sites only if cake is typed after Red Velvet. LipaCityPH (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@HĐ: I think that is not quite not understandable. Some will still think Red Velvet is cake, and some will think that name is fish which is called Red velvetfish. But in many articles and news, 'Red Velvet' refer to Korean girl group. And also, in the Google, if you put red velvet on search, it first shows Korean girl group information, not a cake images or information. I think your idea is not based on WP:PTOPIC, but it's rather a topic of "Not "what first comes to (your) mind"" -- Wendylove (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously Red Velvet (group) has become more popular overtime thanks to the effects of K-Pop, but it does not guarantee a name change for an encyclopedic entry just to reflect a temporal reaction to a rather recent phenomenon. I do not see any harm in keeping the name as Red Velvet (group). Moving it to only "Red Velvet" would imply that the band is the primary topic, which goes against the definition of a primary topic as "a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic". HĐ (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@HĐ: I recommend you to read Talk:BTS#Requested move 3 March 2020 -- Wendylove (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I stay my ground to oppose a move. Alas, "other stuff" rationale should be avoided. (I even think BTS (band) should not be moved to only BTS for the same reason), HĐ (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@HĐ: Wendylove was just referring to an example and does not convince argument solely based on the article. It only represents how BTS (band) was supported and moved to BTS. However, I do respect your choice for your argument. 07:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Recentism should not be a problem here. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The cake is far more generally recognised in the world in general. In South Korea, maybe not, but South Korea is not an English-speaking country and this is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Many people says that "recognised" things to oppose, but I think that is just one of an example to show "Not "what first comes to (your) mind"". Of course Red Velvet is also a name of cake. But recognition is quite a vague thing which cannot have a consensus through. It is different by generation, gender, region, and jobs. We can give an example such as Korean American or Korean English who is affected by Korean culture, entertainment journalist who is working on K-pop, or fandom who is from English countries such as Philippines, Singapore, or Hong Kong. If we start to discuss these requests with 'recognition', I think there would be no end like the band of Mobius. So my point is we should take a look of articles, news, magazines, programs, which include 'Red Velvet' itself. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with the reasoning or comment of User:웬디러비. LipaCityPH (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. At first blush, I thought the cake to be primary as well, but then I realized that the nom uses title case, while the current disambiguation page and the cake page use "Red velvet" (sentence case). As it stands Red velvet would remain the dab and landing page for anyone searching all lowercase. Courtesy pings just in case the opposition thus far didn't notice this small, easy to miss detail @Happypillsjr, HĐ, and Necrothesp:. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are two other meanings with this exact capitalisation, both of them at least as significant as a K-pop group which despite the section 2018: Japanese debut, touring and worldwide recognition (my emphasis) appears to have performed only once outside of the K-pop strongholds of Korea, Japan and Taiwan. (Comment: The article is also largely promotional and supported by primary sources.) Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Velvet (group)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 웬디러비 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


Wendylove: I think this is a good article, but we can add up some information about concert tour section. There are many articles about it, so we can make it as a paragraph. Also, we must upgrade the draft of their sub-unit, Irene&Seulgi, to make readers more comfortable to understand. Until then, it is too early to put this articles on nominee. -- Wendylove (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@웬디러비: Hi Wendylove! I do understand your points for the nomination. :) However, I think that the concert tour section should have their own pages and not be added to the same article as Red Velvet. Not to mention that every pages of artists (singers, idol groups, bands, etc.) don't really explain or five information about the concert on the same article as the group. You can find another page/article regarding their concerts which is: List of Red Velvet concert tours. Hope this will help you understand! :) Another thing is that, I do agree with upgrading or publishing the draft for the page Red Velvet - Irene & Seulgi. However this has nothing to do with the article nomination itself. That is a separate page/article and I don't think that will affect the good article nomination. I myself think that the article is already a great page to be part of good articles. On the other hand, I hope that the page for Red Velvet - Irene & Seulgi will be established or made since they are notable enough to have their own article. Thank you so much Wendylove! Hope to hear your response very soon! Let's power up! :) LipaCityPH (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: I think you might consider clean-up or cut down this article a bit. For example, the description of the songs should not be too overly detailed and perhaps would be more appropriate within their perspective album articles. Some other details written might be reworded to become a bit more succint as well. Good luck! :)--TerryAlex (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This review has not received any comments in eleven weeks. EN-Jungwon 08:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@웬디러비: @LipaCityPH: It has been months since this review was last visited and frankly speaking, this was not a proper GAN review to begin with. GAN reviews should be based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria and should generally not last longer than a week. Given the amount of time that has passed and the improper review, I have failed the GAN. If the nominator still believes that the article has met the criteria, you may consider re-nominating in the future. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I don't know how to do review, so it should be ended right now. -- Wendylove (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To fulfill criteria of Good Article

As making this article to be "Good Article", we should gather our information. I want to make these as suggestion.

  • We can update their photo, because they've been working until 2019.
  • We can describe their "Red" and "Velvet" theme much further, because it is one of their features of music.
  • We can add some accidents or incidents that is related to Red Velvet such as Wendy's fall or Irene's gapjil incident or reporter's interview during 2018 Pyongyang concert
  • We can add the fandom of Red Velvet.

As there are many South Korean articles, I can give materials for that. Welcome any other suggestions, and pls leave lots of idea to make this article better -- Wendylove (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@웬디러비: Point 1 & 2 can be work on. Point 3 shouldn't be fully included inside Red Velvet article, only the summary of the incident and how it affected other members, the group promotions, etc should be included, the rest should be written inside the member's individual article. As for point 4, I think that violates WP:FANCRAFT. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for advise and your comment! -- Wendylove (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we can find 2020 photos, because there are some photos I found in Wikimedia. I hope those contributors to upload other members' photo too, but it is too much for wish. I'll find more sources for RV in 2020 and their 2021 full-member comeback. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Spotify statement in lead is not found in body

"...and are the fifth most streamed K-pop artist worldwide on Spotify as of February 2020" - this is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and yet it has been included in the lead. It needs to also be inserted into the appropriate section in the prose (the 2019–20 subsection) and reliably sourced, or else be removed. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added source for sentence of concern. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2022

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: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Red Velvet (group) → Red Velvet – Primary Topic. RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC) RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No primary here In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, definitely not the primary topic. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Red Velvet (group) is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be what the user is looking for. This can be seen here and here. Red Velvet (group) receives more page views than all other topics known by the same name combined and receives the large majority of outgoing traffic from the disambiguation page.—Profzed! 21:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Red Velvet (group) has a clear lead in pageviews, I would argue that red velvet cake has a greater long-term significance due to its longevity as a popular food item. Overall, I think the balance of topics does not support any primary topic for this phrase. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 January 2023

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: not moved. Apparent WP:SNOW here. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Red Velvet (group) → Red Velvet – It's kind of weird how this is still not moved, because at this point the first thing that will come to mind to anyone when "Red Velvet" Will be the k-pop group. Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the group isn't a primary topic. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 05:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. I doubt anyone outside Kpop world would think of the Kpop group as the primary topic. Nothing has changed since last year.Evaders99 (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NWFCTM. YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The group is not the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per the long-term significance of some of the lower case items (such as Red velvet cake, 22,756 v 33,096 views for the group) as well as the comparable views of the wrestler (8,878)[[4]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as can be confused with red velvet cake. Lightoil (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the cake is often capitalised as a proper noun, since it isn't red fabric. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as primary meaning worldwide is the cake/cupcake. Only K-Pop fans would know this group. Damon Mah (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Velvet_(group)/Archive_1&oldid=1136376359"