Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Rewrote March 1st Movement

I'm a month or two late for the holiday, but rewrote this article. If anyone can upload more photos of the event, particularly ones good for the infobox, that'd be appreciated (I can't as an IP user). 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest

Hello, everyone! I'd like to invite you all to sign up for the upcoming 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest. The event runs from July 1 to September 30 and signups close on July 15. The WikiContest focuses on developing countries, which they have included North Korea within. The intention is to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage and comprehension of articles related to developing countries. For this reason, you may also expect that articles related to the North Korea may be heavily edited during the contest. More information on how points will be awarded can be found at Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Scoring. For comments or suggestions, please don't hesitate to reach out to Wikipedia talk:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest. Thank you! (Copied with the permission of Chlod) CMD (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia

Now that sadly this extremely useful article was deleted, how to provide this information instead? It sounds like we're now forced to include it in each artist's article instead, and perhaps add tracking categories by year under Category:Lists of concert tours of South Korean artists? Nemo 15:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

So for example for Europe it could be something like Category:Concert tours of Europe by South Korean artists (88 additions). This doesn't cover the individual performances and the articles often don't mention the exact dates and venues; the list article also had more references than the individual articles. Many more tours touched the USA or Canada and could go under equivalent categories under Category:Concert tours of North America. Nemo 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Those categories could be useful if the tours are notable enough to have their own article, but putting the articles about the artists (not the tours) into those categories doesn't make sense because they are people/groups, not tours. Gottagotospace (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the concern, hence I only added the category to articles where the tour was mentioned explicitly. As for the naming of the categories, I think that's minor aspect which can be fixed.

A traditional way to handle it is to have a redirect from the tour name to the main article, and add the category to the redirect. The advantage of this method is that it's possible to redirect to a specific section of the main article, but it still feels a bit clunky to me.

Personally I'd prefer a way to name the categories in a sufficiently neutral name which can apply to the artist articles as well. For example we could name them all after the parent category Category:Lists of concert tours of South Korean artists, like Category:Lists of concert tours of South Korean artists in Europe in 2017 etc. The articles about the artists are also lists of their tours and other works, unless these were split to other articles. Nemo 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw you made some categories called "South Korean artists with concert tours of Europe in [insert year]", which does at least solve the "people/groups aren't tours" problem. However, I think that adding categories like that to an artist's page is overdoing it. In my opinion, pages already tend to have too many categories, and a piece of information about the fact that they went on tour in Europe in [insert year] doesn't need to be put in a category, especially because some K-pop artists go to Europe super often and then they'll end up with like 10 categories about their European concerts on the artist's page. If the tour is notable enough to have its own article, then I support having the page for the tour be in a category about K-pop concert tours in Europe in a certain year, but otherwise I think it's kind of silly.

The points made by some of the editors in the deletion discussion for List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia are factoring into my opinion as well. In particular, a couple people made points that K-pop has become so popular and global now that tons of K-pop groups perform outside of Asia, and do so relatively frequently. So the fact that they're having concerts in Europe is not particularly notable. Gottagotospace (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I saw that Nemo has been adding Category:South Korean artists with concert tours of Europe in 2018 and what not to various articles and I don't think its a good idea. I think a better way to organize this would be simply adding the tour articles itself to Category:Concert tours of Europe, not the articles of the artists. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding to it that those recently created cats are WP:OVERCAT and falls under WP:OCYEAR and WP:OVERLAPCAT. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is clearly not aheld to, you WP:BOLD ahead and was evidently reverted earlier on BLP articles, and now you discuss instead of disruptively bolding ahead again to illustrate a point. I also don't see any consensus for re-bolding. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

These categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Category:Concert tours of Europe by South Korean artists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Help request

Mental health in South Korea is in significant need of expansion. I just gave it a revision to combine redundant info and regroup/reorder topics, but it's still relatively sparse. If you can help out, please do. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Culture ministry to update Wikipedia entries on Korea, enhance national image with AI

We'll see what happens, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed... I hope they consulted the Wikimedia Foundation about this and understand Wikipedia's editing policies well. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is K-Pop a music genre?

Due to my edits on quite a lot of articles of K-Pop songs being removed most of them saying K-Pop isn't a genre. I believe it is and I want to provide a consensus across Wikipedia if it is.

From what I know, the first known open discussion about this is made by me at Talk:K-pop#Is K-Pop a music genre? and one at Talk:Ddu-du Ddu-Du#Is K-Pop a music genre?

If this discussion gets too big, maybe it could it a WikiProject if it works like that too. —Tonkarooson (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing infobox cleanup tool (category) for Korean articles?

Anyone has any idea why we are missing the following tool for Korea - linking Chinese here as examples of functionality that (and many other projects) have: Category:China articles without infoboxes .

There is no Category:Korea articles without infoboxes :( _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wife ((G)I-dle song)#Requested move 30 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wife ((G)I-dle song)#Requested move 30 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive info about wars in place articles

A quote from the article about the SK government and Wikipedia has made me think recently. When searching for Korea-related information on travel information platforms, one often encounters topics such as the demilitarized zone (DMZ) tourism, while the rich and diverse aspects of Korean culture and society remain largely overlooked. My feelings on the article are mixed, but this quote made me notice a pattern I hadn't fully processed before.

Some articles for Korea about places and things are I think unfairly bleak reading. I think it's because we have a disproportionate number of people interested in Korea's wars (particularly the Korean War) and in little else about Korea, which has led to a sharp imbalance that unfairly hurts Korea's image.

I almost feel like this is a case of WP:BLP. Hypothetically, if you had a small village with a tragic past but people still living there today, do they really deserve to have 70% of their article be about war and death, when they've done so much else before and after that? Yes, the info is true; Korea's recent history was bleak. If there was lots of other non-war info presented in each article, it wouldn't be an issue. But at present so many articles make Korea look like a still-smouldering crater, which is far from the truth.

I'm going to make a point of trying to balance out this kind of info going forward; please join me in it if you can. Again, we of course want to preserve the truth and provide enough tools for people to do more reading about the dark topics without harping on them. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

A further thought; part of this is influenced by English-language coverage of Korea, which also tends to fixate on Korea's tragic past. Drama sells books and gets views in the news.

Korean-language coverage is of course much more varied. This is another reason why more Korean speakers are needed on Enwiki. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, which category of articles are most in need of attention? I can help with Korean sourcing and translation since I'm pretty confident in both languages. 00101984hjw (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages with excess dark info I think fortunately tend to have low pageviews, so I think this overall doesn't worry me too much.

Speaking in general, Top/High importance pages for the WikiProject need a lot of attention. Any page you choose from there would be great to work on.

Among them, I think Sejong the Great and Yi Sun-sin are especially important and actually somewhat doable to fix. I feel like someone just needs to have 2-3 solid academic books (should be some in English), and then they can scrap the old articles almost entirely and do their own rewrites. Both articles are poor enough that a good complete rewrite would be defensible I think. Basically what I did for March First Movement.

Those tasks are quite big though. Other top level pages are easier tasks. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think one of the problems we have for these articles is that Sejong and Yi happen to be the two most famous Korean folk heroes, and many Korean books and articles about them are written in a very subjective, narrative manner. I don't live near a library, but I can certainly look up for more academic studies in DBpia.

btw Great job on the March first movement article. Looks amazing. 00101984hjw (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 🙂 211.43.120.242 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Another important one: Seoul. The article has a bunch of unsourced and dated claims that can easily be cited. It also could use more peer reviewed scholarly sources to replace low quality ones. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Redoing the Sejong article

I'm trying to redo the Sejong the Great article, and would appreciate some help.

Things I need help with:

1. Does anyone know of any biographies on Sejong that are considered authoritative/essential? I'm mostly seeing stuff meant for casual readers when I search... I want whatever dry books historians use.
2. Can anyone find and upload a new infobox image for the page? See Talk:Sejong the Great#Infobox image.
3. Fact checking. I'm a newbie to pre-19th century Joseon history.

211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Converting full-width punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text

Greetings! Over the past few years, there have been no objections to converting Latin letters and Arabic numerals to ASCII from their full-width forms when they appear in horizontal Chinese, Korean, or Japanese text. I've raised it on MOS and Wikiproject talk pages and made many cleanup edits to articles. I'm making a push to finish that cleanup, and I've been noticing that punctuation, currency symbols, and spaces have the same problem. It looks weird to have the full-width versions mixed in, and they sometimes leak into English-language text. My plan was to start converting punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text (except where the characters themselves are being discussed) when the July 1 database dump becomes available in a week or two. If you have any questions, objections, concerns, or suggestions, please let me know! Open-circle full stop is not included; the affected characters are: ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ ＊ ＋ － ／ ＠ ＼ ＾ ＿ ｀ ￠ ￥ ￦ ＜ ＝ ＞ ｜ ￤ and the space character. -- Beland (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded image guide on project page

On the main WikiProject page, I added a subsection to "resources" that serves as a guide for images. Please feel free to add more websites/advice to this list. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Unequal treaty#Requested move 6 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unequal treaty#Requested move 6 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense诉 18:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference formatting proposal

I posted a proposal on how to handle Hangul names in references at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Handling Hangul names in references. This proposal would have a significant impact on Korea-related pages, so please discuss if interested. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have more proposals for the MOSKO/NCKO; some of these are relatively uncontroversial so I expect them to pass quicker. After the current proposal concludes I'll try to bundle some uncontroversial modifications together as a package to reduce discussion bloat/fatigue. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Drafts

There's a sizeable backlog of draft articles waiting to be evaluated if anyone's willing to go through them. I've also contributed a good chunk of these recently lol 211.43.120.242 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cha Eun-woo § Listing of "model" as a profession

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cha Eun-woo § Listing of "model" as a profession, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

List of South Korean girl groups has an RfC

List of South Korean girl groups, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

No kid zone

Hi, I'd appreciate if an experienced editor familiar with Korean could take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/No kid zone. An IP recently added a bunch of Korean-language sources and I wish to assume good faith, but I'm unsure of their reliability since I don't speak the language. A second opinion would be greatly appreciated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources should hopefully help. The sources I added should already have been Wikilinked too; almost all the sources each have their own articles.

I'm User:Toobigtokale (contribs) btw; on my old account I had around 77,000 edits and I think 5 or 6 GAs. Samples of my work: March First Movement and 1883 Korean special mission to the United States.

I welcome others to review my additions. Sorry if I stepped on any toes when editing the article. The topic is on a sensitive area for South Koreans, and wanted to contribute more South Korean perspectives and context to it before it appears on the front page. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For me, the added Korean-language sources are reliable per WP:KO/RS. You could also use this user script to know which sources are reliable or not. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate everyone chipping in here. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

White Shirts Society has an RfC

White Shirts Society has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yuna Kim A-class assessment

Hello everyone, WikiProject Figure Skating has just started doing A-class assessments. Our first article submitted for review is Yuna Kim, and we're in need of a third reviewer. Here's the link to the assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Assessment/Yuna Kim. The assistance of any member of this project would be muchly appreciated. You don't have to necessarily be a figure skating expert (although that would help, of course), but you should at least be knowledgeable about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks to all and best. Editor120918756 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:My Cute Guys#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:My Cute Guys#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shamoji#Requested move 12 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shamoji#Requested move 12 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sad Story of Self Supporting Child#Requested move 22 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sad Story of Self Supporting Child#Requested move 22 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Japanese wiki Kantō Massacre changes

The Japanese Wikipedia version of the Kantō Massacre article (ja:関東大震災朝鮮人虐殺事件) is going under an upheaval right now. I wrote a summary on it here: Talk:Kantō Massacre (take my summary with grain of salt; I'm not a strong reader/speaker so I use a dictionary to read the Japanese). May be worth keeping an eye on. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: the discussion is still ongoing, some of the claims being made are even more explicitly revisionist than before. Some of such claims have gone completely unchallenged. seefooddiet (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Correcting Ive → IVE, Le Sserafim → LE SSERAFIM, Twice → TWICE, etc.

I have started a conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ive_(group)#Ive_%E2%86%92_IVE_per_MOS:IDENTITY

I believe I have noticed a systemic error in some editors' interpretation of site guidelines and policies insofar as accepting the stylization of Korean pop groups. Not only would policies such as MOS:BIOEXCEPT and MOS:IDENTITY allow, for example, for the Wikipedia article about ARTMS to be titled ARTMS instead of Artms, because these articles are regarding living person(s), these articles must be titled in this way, as their current titles violate WP:BLP. Any experienced editors who can comment on any or all of the strength of this argument, the extent of this violation in this topic area, and/or the best way to begin to start tackling this (would an en masse Move Request need to be done to address WP:CONSISTENT? can someone formulate this as an WP:RFC better than I'd be able to?) – or indeed, anyone who disagrees – may be interested in commenting. 122141510 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Would anyone be interested in joining a sub project of WP:Anthropology on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources

I recently gave the reliable sources list a reformatting. I also made some editorial decisions in removing some sources from the list, but I wasn't particularly rigorous. Honestly looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 1, the list itself wasn't created with much rigor; we really should go through and scrub it harder.

The reliable source list is important; see the considered unreliable section. Allkpop, Soompi, and OhmyNews are used all the time in pop culture articles but they're considered unreliable sources. This list should be maintained and enforced with more rigor. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dongguk Tonggam#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dongguk Tonggam#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

More restrictive change regarding Wiktionary links

As I wrote a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Thinking about removing Wiktionary links in some cases, I started to think that a lot of (if not most) existing Wiktionary links are actually overlinking.

Since a rewrite of MOS:KO has begun (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)), I decided to propose a change to the section regarding Wiktionary links.

I would like to replace Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Adding links to hangul text with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)#Wiktionary links. This is a more restrictive change. 172.56.232.109 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have any comments on this, please post it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal). 172.56.232.72 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We should discuss this on the talk page for the MOS draft 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Link added. 172.56.232.72 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We should use these

ko:위키백과:참 잘했어요 도장 The Korean Wikipedia has these nice little stamps, basically WP:Barnstars. If anyone's interested, may be nice to implement and use these for our WikiProject. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No kid zone listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for No kid zone to be moved to No kid zone (South Korea). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Religion in South Korean president infobox

The previous discussion at Talk:President of South Korea#Religion, for the use of {{Infobox officeholder}} for | religion = parameter has been depreciated last July 2017. Should we remove religion from | module = parameter? 49.150.12.163 (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Joseon politics are a complete mess

Korean literati purges is a complete mess. Political factions during the Joseon dynasty has very little coverage after the Hungu–Sarim conflicts. Most of the articles in Template:Purges in Joseon and Template:Bungdang have not yet been created.

The four Korean literati purges imo each deserve an article of their own. The Reshuffles(Hwanguks) should be fine with only a single article, since they weren't really cases of bloody political violence, but the result of some very chaotic policies administered by a pathetic simp that is Sukjong of Joseon. Some examples in the Persecutions and Treason Cases should have their own articles if they were significant enough.

Very little people in the enwiki participate in editing obscure Korean history subjects like this, so I won't expect things to improve anytime soon. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and try translating some articles from the kowiki. 00101984hjw (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Restaurants

I've been realizing that our coverage of restaurants in both Koreas is pretty poor. Before my additions, a lot of Category:Restaurants in South Korea was chains, fast food, or family restaurants. Compare to Category:Restaurants in New York City; fantastic coverage in this category.

I created this template {{Historic restaurants in South Korea}} and wrote all the articles in it at present.

Also, if you're interested in North Korean restaurants those need coverage too. I'm unlikely to get around to those. seefooddiet (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Blackpink § "K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Ive (group) § "K-pop girl group" in the lead

Moved from Talk:Illit § no mention of Kpop on lead

Creating a centralized discussion for the above topic as @Cinemaandpolitics created multiple discussion on such, quote from their statement: Why a K-pop group shouldn't be called a... K-pop group, and clearly K-pop groups, with endless references to support it, and I don't see why they shouldn't be called as such. Cinemaandpolitics updated Blackpink, Ive, and Illit from South Korean girl group to South Korean K-pop girl group, all of which has been reverted by @Flabshoe1 (former) and me (2 latter). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics, changing from South Korean girl group or South Korean boy band or South Korean singer or South Korean rapper or South Korean musician to South Korean K-pop girl group or South Korean K-pop boy band or South Korean K-pop singer or South Korean K-pop rapper or South Korean K-pop musician is inconsistent with other high-quality BLP articles, including FA-class (e.g., BTS) or GA-class (e.g., Blackpink). In which, it's also not the currently observed status quo status quo (not related to the essay). I'm not suggesting that "K-pop" shouldn't be included in the lead, it should be used in a different part of the lead, when summarizing on their musical style or genre coverage, etc, rather than the opening sentence. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) edited 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Paper9oll for making a centralized discussion, which I didn't know how or where to make.

I don't agree with your status quo argument. As far as I could read Wikipedia doesn't have a bias towards status quo (WP:DONTREVERT). I think that this being the status quo is another issue on itself. The exemples you're pointing out being considered GA or FA makes it even more concerning.

Excluding or limiting the K-pop reference in the lead means globally dismissing the vaste amount of conceptual references, industry practices, cultural norms that go along with these K-pop groups. Both generally but also specifically for each group. There are countless references that connect each of these groups to the K-pop umbrella, all already included on the pages. It should definetelly have a prominent role in the lead, as the mention of "girl group" has.

What do others think of this? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to add some additional information, Blackpink being K-pop is currently mentioned two sentences later in the lead in context of the group’s genre, which is the version I restored. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flabshoe1 Which is already a better look than the Illit page, which has 0 references to K-pop in the lead. For me the issue is still relevant for the reasons I mentioned. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a status quo preference (in the absence of other considerations). WP:BRD is better accepted than WP:DONTREVERT, although both are merely essays, not guidelines or policy. If there is a content dispute, the onus for justifying an edit is on the person who wants to change an article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides the technicalities maybe you can also comment on the issue?

The page you mentioned clearly says "BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. Revert only when necessary." and links to... the page I mentioned. Status quo should be prefered only "in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved". So... The status quo argument has little to no value, and can consitute WP:STONEWALLING. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add "K-pop" alongside "South Korean." While it makes sense to include it for genre purposes, adding it next to "South Korean" doesn't seem needed or beneficial. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 19:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "South Korean" and "girl group" sufficiently establish the subject of an article. Blackpink is a girl group from South Korea that performs several genres, including K-pop, according to the infobox and Artistry sections of the article itself. "South Korean girl group" does not describe any specific genres. I would not want to limit groups to one genre in the lead sentence when they perform several different genres, even if it can be argued that one genre is more prominent than the others. For example, the article on Ive also lists J-pop, because they have original Japanese songs. Wouldn't describing Ive as a "South Korean K-pop girl group" be misleading? Therefore, I think it is appropriate to explain the specific genres they perform later, while establishing the subject of the article in a broader sense at the beginning. User350 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. I don't think the exclusion of "k-pop" from the very first sentence somehow minimizes their link to k-pop, especially not if the mention comes within one to two sentences afterwards. "South Korean K-pop girl group" is also wordier. OP's comment of globally dismissing the vaste amount of conceptual references, industry practices, cultural norms that go along with these K-pop groups this is way too melodramatic for this situation.

A gentler guidance would be "k-pop should generally be prominently mentioned in the first paragraph"; I think nearly everyone would agree with this. There's no reason to have a stiff requirement to have the first sentence mention it. seefooddiet (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

K-pop is not only a music genre, but refers to a set of industry practices that these groups shares, or at least refer to extensivelly. Also please note that I wasn't looking for a stiff requirement, I tried to add it to a few groups and got reverted and that's why I wanted to discuss it.

Those groups are clearly established as "K-pop groups". It is arguably the main single most prominent information about these groups, capable of encompassing many others: they get through a K-pop trainee system, their videos refer to K-pop production practices, they share visual grounds etc etc.

Nothing melodramatic, nor limited at the "genre", it is just more precise that "South Korean" or "girl group" alone.

A girl group from South Korea could very well not be a K-pop group. Those are K-pop groups and most source refers to them as such and comment on those very elements that constitute K-pop in them. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My earlier statement [K-pop] should be used in a different part of the lead, when summarizing on their musical style or genre coverage, etc, rather than the opening sentence is reflected by User350 perfectly in their comment. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But why do you think that K-pop means exclusivelly a music genre? Doesn't it carry similar, but more specific, elements that the concept of "girl group" does? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

K-pop is indeed genre. And btw, I'm not and won't be discussing this topic in a restrictive format of just "girl group" as you could have seen above in my reply, I've included other types. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote "exclusivelly" a music genre. If you visit the K-pop page it shows, in the lead already, why it is not only a genre but also a general set of production mechanism etc Which is what I feel is missing from these leads Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Which was why I and other editors already stated that we are not stopping you from including what I feel is missing in the other portion of the lead, in addition to already specifying where you should place them on. Which part of including what I feel is missing in other portion of the lead aligning with others high-quality BLP articles practices is so hard to understand on? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because, as I have already stated, it is in my opinion a misunderstanding to try to find another spot in the lead that portrays these groups as if they relate to K-pop as a genre, similarly to EDM or others. Because K-pop is not exclusivelly a genre.

"South korean K-pop girl group" is for me the most space efficient way to convey what they are.

I will ask a Request for Comment to other editors to see what people that are not watching K-pop pages think about this. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not add "!" to the hanja parameter of a personal name when using Template:Infobox Korean name

Currently, Category:Wikipedia articles needing hanja is mostly meaningless. It mostly consists of people, but it is difficult to find hanja names for modern people. Even Korean-language sources today usually do not give hanja for personal names. (Chinese-language sources are unreliable for Korean hanja names because they "make up" one when the actual hanja is not known.)

If no one opposes, I will start removing "!" from the hanja parameters of personal names in Template:Infobox Korean name. 172.56.232.191 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please hold off on removal until consensus is obtained. I'm not sure removal of "!" is needed. I'm skeptical of how useful this category is because of how difficult the task is, per your original comment, but don't see the need to deprecate it either. But I want to hear more rationale if you have any, and from other people too. seefooddiet (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. My point is this: Is it really possible to find actual hanja names and fill in those parameters (and remove articles from that category)?
2. Another important reason: I don't think putting "!" for an unknown hanja name is always followed.
   • For example, Jin Ki-joo, Jo Yoon-kyung, Yoon Sang-hyeon, etc., seem to have hanja, but their hanja parameters are simply empty (not "!") – so they do not show up in that category.

172.56.232.191 (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Functionally no, but that doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.
2. The presence of inconsistency with tagging problems doesn't mean that we should abandon tagging altogether.

It's similar to like {{Needs more references}}. Functionally, it's nearly impossible for every article to be well-sourced, and plenty of poorly-sourced articles aren't tagged with this template. But that doesn't mean we should do away with the template altogether.

Granted, you're right in that that category is probably especially useless; I'm sure few people have ever seen it; I hadn't heard of it until you pointed it out. But still, if it's not hurting anyone and it is identifying a valid problem, I don't see why we should do away with it altogether. seefooddiet (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment for including specificity (K-pop) in South Korean artist labeling in the lead

Should South Korean girl groups like Blackpink and NewJeans be referred to as "South Korean K-pop girl group" in the lead? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto the restrictive RfC. Should South Korean boy band (for example: BTS, Super Junior, Seventeen, NCT, NCT Dream, NCT 127, Exo etc) or South Korean singer (for example: Taeyeon, IU, Jennie, Jimin, Jungkook, etc) or South Korean rapper (for example: RM, Lisa, Jeon So-yeon, Zico, Lee Young-ji, Moonbyul, etc) be referred to as "South Korean K-pop boy band" or "South Korean K-pop singer" or "South Korean K-pop rapper" , respectively, in the lead? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm strongly against it, as it feels a bit excessive. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: has consensus ever been established on whether k-pop is only a genre vs also being an industry and its practices?

I'm asking mostly out of intellectual curiosity. I don't think it's that important to have "k-pop" in the first sentence, even if there is a consensus on this topic. A significant chunk of people globally know that k-pop is South Korean pop music, not worried anyone will misunderstand the situation or not link these groups to k-pop. seefooddiet (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet The page K-pop referes to the broader meaning of industry practices on lead. There are countless references to support it.

Also I want to make it clear, since the title of the RfC was modified after I opened it, that I edited specific pages where I feel the sources more than adequately refer to the groups as "Kpop group". I had no intention of modifying 20+ pages in a sweep. Also note that two of the pages I had edited currently don't have *any* reference to K-pop on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, as long as "k-pop" is mentioned prominently in the first few sentences, I don't think this debate is that important. Those articles missing it in the lead should have it added somewhere, but I don't care where, as long as the prose flows naturally. Could be any of the first few sentences. The net effect will be indistinguishable. seefooddiet (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean that would be at least something. For me that is the prose that flows more naturally, because that is how the vast majority of the sources call them. I am not against at least having some kind of direct reference to K-pop. I've just noticed that actually for NewJeans there is a reference to K-pop in the lead, I had missed it because for me this kind of formulation is hilariously indirect.

"the former becoming the longest-running song on the Billboard Global 200 by a K-pop female act."

Using "by a K-pop female act" without previously establishing that they are one doesn't flow naturally at all for me. What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia does not use "American pop singer" or "English pop singer" in the lede of those artists, so why exactly should there be "South Korean K-pop group" or what not in the lede for K-pop artists? I don't see a convincing argument here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Because it is the most concise way to refer to a complex set of industry practices that do not only relate to a musical genre. This is the exact same thing that "girl group" does by the way, only with a different scope. Maybe my argument is not convincing, but at least it should be taken into consideration instead of exclusivelly talking about K-pop as a genre. Also, I looked up the opening of the Britney Spears article.

  "Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American singer. Often referred to as the "Princess of Pop", she is credited with influencing the revival of teen pop during the late 1990s and early 2000s."

  She gets an immediate mention to her most prominent genre, this, at the very least, seems mandatory to me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)