Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shinhwa discography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was withdrawn by Crisco 1492 09:37, 22 July 2015 [1].
Shinhwa discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is an inclusive and useful list that meets the content and style requirements of discographies and standalone lists. I also want it to serve as a model for Korean music-related discographies, as there are currently no FLs in this area from the time period covered by this list. South Korea's music charts have changed a few times over the years, and I feel this list accurately portrays and represents the charts being used at various points in time. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your comments. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Random86 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
|
- Support. I believe this now meets the featured list criteria. (I tweaked the references myself.) Random86 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT |
|---|
Comments from FrB.TG
Responses to FrB.TG Thank you so much, @FrB.TG: for taking the time to review and for the useful feedback! I'll try to address your concerns.
This is my first experience with featured content, I'm probably not in a position to assess another FL candidate. Also, it's Taylor Swift; you'll have no problem finding reviewers! Unlike poor Shinhwa, who no one cares about, ha ha. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions, and hope you can take another look to see if the article has improved (as well as answer my questions). Shinyang-i (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Don't worry about references; they are perfectly fine now. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(s) from dan_arndt
- In accordance with the style guide for discographies it is recommended that column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Studio albums, where the Korean charts should be in a single column, under a single heading of KOR, separated into two sub-columns for each of the two Korean charts. Dan arndt (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the band have any music sales certifications (i.e. Gold, Platinum Records) from the Korea Music Content Industry Association. Most of the relevant websites are all in Korean. Dan arndt (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the second paragraph the wiki-link for My Choice is broken. Dan arndt (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to dan_arndt Thank you so much for taking the time to review, @Dan arndt:. I'll try to address your concerns.
- I don't think it will improve the article in any way to completely redo the tables in order to make this minute change. The required information is there, clearly presented, and totally understandable. The style guideline for discographies has never been agreed upon by anyone, so I think it's fine the way it is. Also, because there are three different Korean charts involved in the article, I kept the name of the chart in the table header even in tables showing placements for only one Korean chart. It's much more clear that way.
- Korea has no certifications.
- D'oh, thanks for catching that. I broke it a couple days ago when making another editor's requested changes; it's now fixed.
Thanks again for your time. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan arndt, can you give me an example of a featured list discography with sub-columns for multiple charts from the same country? I looked at quite a few and couldn't find one. Lists such as Mariah Carey singles discography and Iggy Azalea discography have three different US charts, but there are no sub-columns, and WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't mention sub-columns specifically. Random86 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
- I'd remove the note about the videography article and place it in a "See also" section.
- Many discographies include music videos, but in this case they're listed on the videography article instead, so the hatnote is in its present location by way of explanation. This type of hatnote seems appropriate in this case, much like a hatnote to a group member's group works on their solo discography (see FL George Michael discography and Wham! discography, for instance).
- I'm not suggesting you remove it, just move it to a section above references titled ===See also=== and list it there. The examples you cite are notes about other musical discographies, videographies are generally non-important in relation to discographies.
- But videographies are kind of parallel to discographies. They're for an artist's video releases, and discographies are for audio releases. So I just thought it made sense to have it in a hatnote to clear up the music video issue.
- Videograhpies, like this one, can actually include other things like television commercials and film/tv appearances, which as you know are completely unrelated, still would like to see this moved but it's your FLC so your call.
- But videographies are kind of parallel to discographies. They're for an artist's video releases, and discographies are for audio releases. So I just thought it made sense to have it in a hatnote to clear up the music video issue.
- I'm not suggesting you remove it, just move it to a section above references titled ===See also=== and list it there. The examples you cite are notes about other musical discographies, videographies are generally non-important in relation to discographies.
- Many discographies include music videos, but in this case they're listed on the videography article instead, so the hatnote is in its present location by way of explanation. This type of hatnote seems appropriate in this case, much like a hatnote to a group member's group works on their solo discography (see FL George Michael discography and Wham! discography, for instance).
- Link to the closest appropriate article for chart column headers, because at this point, I have no idea what "KOR RIAK" is.
- The RIAK has no article and likely never will. You just have to read the note, unless you have other ideas?
- I suggest you link to the article on Korea, some may not understand the abbreviation.
- Okay, although the Korea article doesn't mention the RIAK. The acronym is explained in the article, if a person actually reads the whole thing.
- I suggest you link to the article on Korea, some may not understand the abbreviation.
- The RIAK has no article and likely never will. You just have to read the note, unless you have other ideas?
- Can nothing be done about the large width of the Year column in Singles and Other appearances?
- The width of the year column is, on some tables, dictated by the length of the word "positions", which is required. If I make the font smaller for some tables to shrink the width of the column, then another editor will likely have a problem with inconsistency in that regard. Hmm...
- Not one single is referenced to prove it's a single as opposed to a non-single charting song.
- This has entered my mind, also, but I've never seen references to "prove" something was a single. There are none on the only Korean discography featured list, Girls' Generation discography. Korean singles were not generally released for sale until pretty recently (2010, generally), so there are no chart positions. Pre-Gaon, singles were simply those songs that had music videos, were performed on music TV shows, used to promote sales of the album. This may differ from how, say, the USA does it, but it was the norm in Korea. What kind of references would be appropriate? (edited to add, I see a fellow editor has added some refs consisting of mentions of the songs in news articles. Is this the kind of thing that's needed? If so, most will be in Korean but it's probably do-able. Just never seen anyone else do it before.)
- This is the first Korean discog FLC I've given comments to, so I may well be mistaken, is their no iTunes singles? Random86's refs seem to check out too also.
- I don't know what you mean, "is there no iTunes singles". Until pretty recently, most songs were not released individually for sale; of course there are no singles newly-created for iTunes that weren't released as singles in the past. I don't think iTunes is relevant; it doesn't even exist in Korea. What I'm asking is what kind of things are appropriate to use as references in a case like this? Please go look at the FLC I mentioned, as it has absolutely no references to prove something was a single. Some of these songs are from the late 1990s - it will be very hard to find articles (all of which will be in Korean) specifically saying "this song was a single". We know they were singles because they have music videos and were promoted on music shows. So if I can't find a source I have to leave it off, which means the discography is then inaccurate. I'm happy to try, but I need to know what kind of stuff I'm looking for; things like Random86 put, yes or no? It will, at the very least, take quite a long time to find something for every single, and I don't think it's fair after the Girls' Generation discography got promoted to FL with no references at all for that kind of thing (and a ton of other missing/incorrect references).
- Yes I'd try, otherwise I can argue that all of the singles currently without reference should move to the Other Charted Songs box, if someone does that, what would you say? That the songs have music videos so are singles? A song having a music video doesn't prove it was a single. As for the other Korean FL, I also would have raised this issue had I given comments there, but I didn't, so I can't. I'll have a read over it and leave a comment on the talk page about this issue.
- What would I say? I'd say they should be blocked for vandalism. Since you raised this issue, I've been looking at other discography FLs and what you're recommending simply is not standard practice on any of them. Most have no references at all to "prove" something was a single. Others have a reference here or there (all to iTunes, a retail site and thus not very appropriate), with no apparent rhyme or reason to why. Do we also have to give sources to prove something was not a single? I'm sorry, but there is no reason to make this FLC conform to standards that no other FL has ever been expected to meet.
- Yes I'd try, otherwise I can argue that all of the singles currently without reference should move to the Other Charted Songs box, if someone does that, what would you say? That the songs have music videos so are singles? A song having a music video doesn't prove it was a single. As for the other Korean FL, I also would have raised this issue had I given comments there, but I didn't, so I can't. I'll have a read over it and leave a comment on the talk page about this issue.
- I don't know what you mean, "is there no iTunes singles". Until pretty recently, most songs were not released individually for sale; of course there are no singles newly-created for iTunes that weren't released as singles in the past. I don't think iTunes is relevant; it doesn't even exist in Korea. What I'm asking is what kind of things are appropriate to use as references in a case like this? Please go look at the FLC I mentioned, as it has absolutely no references to prove something was a single. Some of these songs are from the late 1990s - it will be very hard to find articles (all of which will be in Korean) specifically saying "this song was a single". We know they were singles because they have music videos and were promoted on music shows. So if I can't find a source I have to leave it off, which means the discography is then inaccurate. I'm happy to try, but I need to know what kind of stuff I'm looking for; things like Random86 put, yes or no? It will, at the very least, take quite a long time to find something for every single, and I don't think it's fair after the Girls' Generation discography got promoted to FL with no references at all for that kind of thing (and a ton of other missing/incorrect references).
- This is the first Korean discog FLC I've given comments to, so I may well be mistaken, is their no iTunes singles? Random86's refs seem to check out too also.
- This has entered my mind, also, but I've never seen references to "prove" something was a single. There are none on the only Korean discography featured list, Girls' Generation discography. Korean singles were not generally released for sale until pretty recently (2010, generally), so there are no chart positions. Pre-Gaon, singles were simply those songs that had music videos, were performed on music TV shows, used to promote sales of the album. This may differ from how, say, the USA does it, but it was the norm in Korea. What kind of references would be appropriate? (edited to add, I see a fellow editor has added some refs consisting of mentions of the songs in news articles. Is this the kind of thing that's needed? If so, most will be in Korean but it's probably do-able. Just never seen anyone else do it before.)
Ok, my example was probably too over dramatic, let me re-word. A harmless IP stumbles on to this article one night, he sees a song he does not think is a single, and innocently moves it to "Other charted songs", his edit summary reads "This wasn't actually a single :)" you are the first to see it, and revert their edit because, as far as you know, it was indeed, with the edit summary "Yes it was". They become more hostile, this time reverting and shouting "NO IT WASN'T I AM A FAN I KNOW". What exactly would you do? Take it to the talk page and say what exactly? That it had a music video? Was performed on TV? Neither of these criteria are definitive proof that these songs are singles. You keep making the excuse that this is a Korean discography and things operate differently, then if this is the case, why not bundle both "Singles" and "Other charted songs" together under the heading "Charted songs" with a note on how it's hard to discriminate between singles and charted songs due to Korean music release regulations. I'd stand behind that. As for your point about FL's without singles refs, which ones exactly? I recently passed Angel Haze discography as an FL, and not only were the singles scrutinized for not having refs, when I placed iTunes refs in I was further scrutinized for using retail markets instead of independent reports, so I'd like to know who's cutting on the slack.
- All of them except Angel Haze, I'd say. :/ I looked at like the first 10 on the FL discog list as well as a smattering of others. (BTW, the disocgs MOS isn't an MOS, it's a Regarding your example, couldn't you use the EXACT same example for any song on any FL discography? I can see your point, but MY point is other FL discogs have not been asked to do this. You think Shinhwa needs to be different because you don't know them, and that's simply discriminatory.
- But anyway, let's try to figure out how to make this work. I'll explain the whole situation to you and maybe together we can come up with a FAIR and non-discriminatory solution. From 1999 to Sept 2008, the RIAK published a monthly chart of sales of physical albums/EPs/maxi-singles/20-CD-box-sets. All of them were together on one chart, all considered as the same things basically. The majority of these items were full albums. All this while, songs were released from these albums for radio airplay, public performance, and with music videos, just like they are anywhere else. But they weren't for sale as separate entities from the album/EP/whatever they were contained on. In 2010, Gaon began publishing weekly charts of physical music sales; again, full albums, EPs, maxi-singles, whatever - they're all treated equally on this chart, and they still have certain songs released to promote the CD, but those songs are still not sold in physical format separately. Gaon also publishes a weekly digital sales chart for digital song sales. All items on this chart are individual songs, as that's how music is sold digitally in Korea, and just like anywhere else, items on this chart may be songs which were released to promote the album (the singles) or may be other album tracks. So, never in Korea's history have singles been released for sale in the way that, say, Beyonce might release several singles (all for sale in some kind of packaging as a single) off an album (which is also for sale). If you notice on the discography, none of the singles released pre-Gaon have any chart positions, because it was impossible for them to chart; they weren't sold in that way. Nevertheless, just because it's a little different than how the USA does it I don't think we can accurately say that there were no singles in Korea ever until the Gaon digital chart was founded. Of course Korean artists had singles and to say otherwise would be very misleading about the musical history of Shinhwa or any other Korean artist who predates 2010.
- Combining all the non-singles and singles together as 'charted songs' would be misleading, because all of the singles before 2010 never charted. They were still singles. Their existence as singles is much more significant than, say, that fact that some random recent album track charted at number 89 for one week. Discographies are about an artist's musical history, not merely a brag book of their charting success.
- I'm willing to find a source for every single if and ONLY if every other discography FL is required to do the same. Maybe every single one of them needs to be nominated for de-listing? I don't necessarily disagree with your "but what if" scenarios (although I'm not nearly as stupid as you portray me to be in your hypothetical scenes, ha ha), but I do refuse to be discriminated against, by your own admission, simply because you aren't familiar with this artist. (Also, just so you know, I'm the last person to try to pull the "but it's Korean so it's ~different~ and ~special~ and therefore I can do whateeeeever I want!" line; I've spent my whole time at Wikipedia fighting those people. I merely said some aspects of the Korean music market are different than, say, the USA's, and that has to be taken into account when asking me to do things like get iTunes links to prove something was a single in 1998. Seriously, I sourced the way other FLs are sourced, and you can't justifiably accuse me of asking for special treatment or being ridiculously sloppy, and you can't genuinely shocked at this response.) As it is, you and some of the other people have put me off seriously editing Wikipedia, like, ever again. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azealia911: You said,
What exactly would you do? Take it to the talk page and say what exactly? That it had a music video? Was performed on TV? Neither of these criteria are definitive proof that these songs are singles.
Except in Korea, those things are criteria that songs are singles. Songs that are used to promote the album (mostly on music shows) are called singles, even though they were not released for sale separately. One example is the EP Ice Cream Cake. It has double title songs, "Ice Cream Cake" and "Automatic". They are called singles by Billboard [4], even though they were never released separately from the album. This is the norm for K-pop. Another example is the song "Ah Yeah"; it was never released separately from its EP, yet reliable sources call it a single: [5], [6]. I think if Shinhwa's singles were removed for lack of references (they mostly didn't chart, so they can't go in "other charted songs"), it would misrepresent Shinhwa's discography. There is very little English-language news about Korean music pre-2012, so it will be extremely difficult finding references explicitly proving the songs were singles. Since Shinyang-i speaks/reads some Korean, he/she might be able to find Korean references. Most FL discographies do not have those kinds of references, so I'm not convinced this is absolutely necessary. Random86 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In Live albums and Compilation albums, a JPN column is listed, but no albums charted on it, I see the not about records not being made available, so is the column there to explain that the albums may have possibly charted in JPN? I'd remove the column completely. I'm also confused why in Compliation albums, two listings have the note, while a 2001 album has —, but the note says pre-2005 archives are unavailable? Don't all three receive the note?
- Yes, the column is there because, as Japanese releases, they may have charted in Japan, but there's no way to know. If I remove the column, won't another editor question why there is no column for Japan even though Japanese releases are listed? Also, My Choice was not released in Japan, hence the dash.
- I'd strongly recommend just removing it. I've never seen a chart column be kept on the possibility that some releases may have charted on it.
- Okay, no problem. I do think another editor will take issue with a lack of column, though. Without it there, we're essentially saying "no, it didn't chart", a statement for which we have no evidence.
- I'd strongly recommend just removing it. I've never seen a chart column be kept on the possibility that some releases may have charted on it.
- Yes, the column is there because, as Japanese releases, they may have charted in Japan, but there's no way to know. If I remove the column, won't another editor question why there is no column for Japan even though Japanese releases are listed? Also, My Choice was not released in Japan, hence the dash.
- Studio albums need (KOR) or whatever is applicable after the release date. As for the possibility of confusion concerning Japanese releases, I don't see how it's confusing, people will see the lack of Japan chart and figure that none of the releases charted there.
- The studio albums table is divided into a section for Korean albums and a section for Japanese albums, as was recommended to me at some point. Does that suffice?
- Not really, the release dates mentioned are supposed to be the first release dates of the album. There's possibility that the albums first got release in another country, Germany perhaps, so it needs clarification. The header tells me what language the album is recorded in, is it meant to tell me anything else?
- No, the header isn't the language, it's the country for which it was released. Korean albums, especially ones this old, aren't released in a ton of countries, certainly not one like Germany. They are sometimes secondarily released in Taiwan or China or Thailand, but those don't go in the discography, only the main country for which the release was intended. This isn't like Western music where albums release & chart in dozens of countries. Inspiration #1 is actually mostly in Korean, but it is a Japanese album - released in Japan for the Japanese market. Similarly, Big Bang's Big Bang was recorded almost entirely in English and yet it's a Japanese album, too - released in Japan for a Japanese market. I've never heard of it being required to say a work's language in a discography.
- I'd remove the Korean and Japanese headers and simply switch to a (KOR) or (JPN) next to each release date, having the separators for only one Japanese release messes up the chronology (Something WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests you adhere to) and really confuses me.
- I divided them up at the suggestion of a senior editor some time ago, because the market for which an album was released is actually a "thing" in Korean music. And once again, it's the way the only available model I had to work with, Girls' Generation discography, is done. I can change it but, again, we're going against the status quo for Korean discogs. (The Discog MOS has never reached consensus, btw.)
- I'd remove the Korean and Japanese headers and simply switch to a (KOR) or (JPN) next to each release date, having the separators for only one Japanese release messes up the chronology (Something WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests you adhere to) and really confuses me.
- No, the header isn't the language, it's the country for which it was released. Korean albums, especially ones this old, aren't released in a ton of countries, certainly not one like Germany. They are sometimes secondarily released in Taiwan or China or Thailand, but those don't go in the discography, only the main country for which the release was intended. This isn't like Western music where albums release & chart in dozens of countries. Inspiration #1 is actually mostly in Korean, but it is a Japanese album - released in Japan for the Japanese market. Similarly, Big Bang's Big Bang was recorded almost entirely in English and yet it's a Japanese album, too - released in Japan for a Japanese market. I've never heard of it being required to say a work's language in a discography.
- Not really, the release dates mentioned are supposed to be the first release dates of the album. There's possibility that the albums first got release in another country, Germany perhaps, so it needs clarification. The header tells me what language the album is recorded in, is it meant to tell me anything else?
- The studio albums table is divided into a section for Korean albums and a section for Japanese albums, as was recommended to me at some point. Does that suffice?
I know, but a proposed MOS probably trumps a hypothetical status quo for a select number of discographies, I'd say switch back to how it was.
- I'd move the refs in Other appearances from the albums to the songs.
- This still needs doing/hasn't been given comment concerning it.
- I did make a comment on it. I don't know where it went, but it must have been lost when things were reformatted. Basically the sources are about the albums, so I put them with the albums. I can move them but it doesn't seem to make any difference one way or another in terms of conforming to an MOS or increasing understandability.
- I did think perhaps I may have mistakenly removed your comment, my apologies, I'd still move them, it's just standard practice on most FLs for clarity.
- Can do, but I don't think it improves or decreased clarity either way.
- I did think perhaps I may have mistakenly removed your comment, my apologies, I'd still move them, it's just standard practice on most FLs for clarity.
- I did make a comment on it. I don't know where it went, but it must have been lost when things were reformatted. Basically the sources are about the albums, so I put them with the albums. I can move them but it doesn't seem to make any difference one way or another in terms of conforming to an MOS or increasing understandability.
- This still needs doing/hasn't been given comment concerning it.
- Note C needs referencing.
- How is the absence of something referenced? The records just aren't there anymore; that's really all I can say. I doubt there are any news stories that say Oricon removed the data. Though many, many pre-2005 Japanese releases on Wikipedia have ref links, they are now all broken.
- That's ok then, leave as is.
- How is the absence of something referenced? The records just aren't there anymore; that's really all I can say. I doubt there are any news stories that say Oricon removed the data. Though many, many pre-2005 Japanese releases on Wikipedia have ref links, they are now all broken.
Oppose at the moment, largely due to the lack of singles references, and confusing Japanese chart in places. Azealia911 talk 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Azealia911, RIAK stands for Recording Industry Association of Korea. It does not have a Wikipedia article, but note A explains what it is. I agree that the unused Japan columns should be removed. All the "year" columns looks normal on my screen, but the width could be set to 2em if it is a problem. Random86 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking the time to review, @Azealia911:. I'll try to address your concerns. Thanks for bringing your perspective to the article and I hope you can give some feedback to my responses so that I can improve the article further. I had little upon which to base some of these unique situations, so it's been a little tough and I hope this discog can eventually be a model upon which other Korean discogs can be modeled. Thanks again! Shinyang-i (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Withdrawn — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.