Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 2

Clarification about Korean sources

There seems to not be a lot of knowledge among editors about Korean news sources. By and large, the articles that get translated into English by Allkpop, Soompi, and fansites come from entertainment-based websites that are not considered reliable by Koreans or, by extension, Wikipedia standards. I see comment after comment on Wikipedia implying that if the article is "the original Korean one" then it is reliable. Nothing could be less true. Let me clear a few things up:

• Naver and Nate are search engines, and they are news story aggregators - the stories they publish are not their own. They cop them from other sites. As such, they in themselves are not sources. Links to the original stories are sometimes at the bottom of the copied articles. If not, the authors' emails are often present, and from the email addresses you can tell what sites the stories originated at. Sometimes when a website retracts or edits a story, the changes do not filter down to the version posted on Naver/Nate. Long story short - Naver and Nate are not reliable sources.
• Any source with "sports" in its name is a tabloid. They are not reliable sources.
• Entertainment websites - which is most of what is cited in kpop articles, directly or indirectly via translation - often fall under shared ownership with the same entertainment companies that run kpop groups, or are part of similar such consortia. Stories that appear on those sites are frequently not independently-created; they are intentional promotion for kpop artists. You and I, as editors, cannot tell which stories are legitimate in response to public interest and which are paid promotion. As such, they are not really reliable sources and much of what they report should be considered self-puffery, trivial, if not outright false. Koreans don't really consider them reliable or regard their contents as real news.
• Overall, Korean media has an eye toward promoting kpop and making outlandish claims about its popularity worldwide. This has been known and acknowledged by experienced editors (and even the average Korean) for years. Many of their claims are utterly and completely false. Therefore, take very, very lightly any claims it makes about an artist's debut/comeback/performance being "highly anticipated" or such accolades. K-media is no better than a fansite in that regard.
• Overall, a high degree of censorship and other blocks to free speech and expression exist in Korea. This is not my personal opinion; it is the opinion of Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch. This is simply important to keep in mind when evaluating reliability of anything.
• There are basically no sources in Korea that can be considered particularly reliable; the best we can do is look for subject coverage in sources that are not frivolous or trivial.
• A note on translations: When articles are translated into English, be it by Allkpop, a fansite, or a "real" Korean news outlet, not everything gets translated; only a select few articles, out of all that were published on a subject, are translated. Therefore, the source of information editors are often using is pre-cherry-picked. So much information gets overlooked in this way, and right from the start, coverage of any subject is unbalanced because translators only translate what they want others to see. For every translated article that celebrates the gross profits of a concert tour, there is often another article in a different source revealing how unprofitable the tour was once expenses were factored in, and it goes untranslated. The former article gets reported on Wikipedia; the latter doesn't, and the story is skewed. That issue can't necessarily be fixed, but it's important to keep in mind that editors, when using translations as their initial source, are automatically using a biased pool of data.
• The list of reliable sources previously compiled probably needs some things removed from it or at least labeled as possibly biased/whatever.

Uh anyway, I just wanted to get all of that out there. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

From your experience, which Korean websites would generally be considered as "reliable", Shinyang-i?--TerryAlex (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Koreans consider only the "main four" to have much legitimacy, meaning they aren't writing paid promotional pieces for certain parties: The Dong-a Ilbo, The Hankyoreh, The Chosun Ilbo, and JoongAng Ilbo, keeping in mind that their "sports" sections are gossip. When stories are posted in these papers, other sources may also post information on the same subjects and might do so reliably. But subjects that are covered only in other sources and never in the big four are generally considered gossip, fluff, not newsworthy, etc. This is general of course, not a hard and fast rule, as there are controversial issues the big four won't touch that others will. And there are papers out there that are borderline quality, not total trash.

Just wondering - does anyone here read a Korean daily paper? I do and in recent memory the only kpop related items I can recall being mentioned were Jessica being kicked out of Girls' Generation, the accident at the 4Minute show, and the deaths of the Ladies' Code members. All the rest of the stuff on Allkpop must have come from gossip/fluff papers, I guess. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh! In terms of TV news (which trickles to the internet, Yonhap is considered the authority. It's the initial source for many newspapers. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i, where can we reference for all those news about the top ranking songs, etc?--TerryAlex (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to use the Gaon site, but it kind of amounts to original research because they often go through adding stuff up themselves. Other than that, I guess they take it from stories on entertainment sites. There are so, so many charts in Korea that I find it all pretty meaningless, and almost everything released charts in some way, making them useless for establishing notability. I don't know of any charts worldwide that aren't, at this point, so steeped in controversy and commercial interest that they have much meaning. Billboard and its millions of offshoots hold no actual legitimacy these days, IMO. But that's just my rant for another time, LOL. I'm not really any help, sorry. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The "physical sales" number are definitely original research.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding what's currently on the reliable list, anything Korean whose purpose is to bring kpop news to an international audience is going to be a gossip/inconsequential fluff site with a huge bias; they are actively promoting a genre of music as a profitable commodity. Just because they don't call themselves a tabloid or gossip site like Allkpop doesn't mean they aren't one. Korea.com is a promo/gossip site both in Korean and English. Their 'About Us' page talks about fans socializing, promoting fan clubs, being the "true portal" into Korea, and advertising/brand awareness. Those things do not speak of serious journalism. The first time I saw them a few years ago I thought someone had hijacked the domain. I view the Mnet site with skepticism because it is affiliated with a particular entertainment umbrella; content there will be biased. BNT News is a beauty/gossip site. Maxim isn't even reliable for news in English is it? Kpop Planet is the tabloid extension of a borderline newspaper, again, promoting something for profit. Metro Seoul is a free morning tabloid handed out near subway entrances. So, definitely not. Asiatoday? Entertainment tabloid-type. Looks like a lot of this stuff made it on the list because they are Korean sites with English versions. They are still tabloid-type sources, not considered reliable or newsworthy. Being Korean does not make them immune to reliability requirements. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i and TerryAlex: Adding sales figures together is not original research per WP:CALC. --Random86 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Random86: Ah cool, thanks for checking that out. I know there has been discussion on some policy pages or working groups (where? I can't remember)outside of kpop articles, alleging that kpop fans veer into original research when calculating sales, but in retrospect I think that was referring to confusing/combining digital and physical sales, something like that. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinyang-i, this would be something that could be added as a section to the album sources page. Actually, you could list those four sources that you said are reliable to the appropriate list (online and print or online only), and then create a supplement page dedicated to listing Korean/K-pop sources, with lists of which are reliable and which are unreliable, such as the About.com critics table, or the Christian music WikiProject's own source list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, and there is actually such a page located here in the Korea working group, although most editors ignore it (just like they ignore talk pages. sigh.). It may need an update after more discussion, as I've just gutted some of the listed sites. The suggestions on additional places to put or link the list should be very helpful - thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing things! I figured most of what Allkpop, etc. translates are little more than press releases and tabloids. Sadly it's most of what can be found translated in English of K-pop news. Having the main 4 handy will be useful. Evaders99 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

About Naver and Nate: since they are news story aggregators, when they are used as sources, we should not put "Naver News" or "Nate News" etc. as the name of the work. The original source should be put in the "work" field (e.g. JoongAng Ilbo, Newsen, etc.). For example, for this news story, the source is Star News (Money Today). Another example: the source for this story is TV Report. Knowing Hangul makes this a little easier. --Random86 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Newsen ... I forgot about it. It's a gossip site, as well. Reliable? Well, who knows, it's typical PR-backed fluff/gossip. Anyway, yes, the original source should always be given. We really need to update the list of reliable sources, since people are (presumably) actively visiting the site now, per the 'needs better sources' tags. We could really use some feedback on my assessment of reliable versus junk sites. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone wrote up Newsen--I was looking for it the other day, thinking we had it. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think depending on the context of the information, some of the supposed gossip Korean news sites can be used. This might need to be judged case by case, but as long as the info is reasonably written, and nothing gossip or "outrageous" about it, some of these sources can be useful (because alternate souces sometimes might not always be available). Let's say if the news article is about some dating news between Celebrity A and Celebrity B and how they met up at 2 AM in the morning in the corner of some back alley, then that would not be something that we want to use, but these websites sometimes also have celebrity interviews and stuff, some of these interviews can be resourceful.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It also depends on how the editors would write-up the articles to demonstrate why the sources they use would not be just a "gossip" (and this is why this has to be judged case by case). Just like "Endorsement", if it is merely a list of endorsement, then it has no encyclopedic values on Wikipedia, but if a certain celebrity is well-known to be a television commercial queen, for example, then that makes it relevant towards her career. But this has to be well-explained in prose, and of course, no list of anything.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex and Shinyang-i: My opinion is that it has to be case by case. You cannot simply rule out allkpop, soompi and the rest, because there are cases when they are extremely useful. If they don't give the original sources for their translations, yes, don't use them, but otherwise for older news it will be difficult to find reliable English language sources. Unless everyone here speaks fluent Korean, we are not out of the waters to source pre 2012 happenings in kpop. Recently Mnet started MWAVE http://mwave.interest.me/ that can be used as a source, they give pretty frequent coverage of major non-gossip happenings. Also, the Korea Herald now has a new outlet called Kpop herald http://www.kpopherald.com/ These sources can in the long run replace Allkpop & co. If you see recent news taken from AKP, Soompi, etc, you can replace with mwave or kpopherald. Also KBS World radio has a Kpop news service http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/program/program_musicnews.htm Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 01:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I 100 percent agree with Teemeah. There are times we need to use those resources and simply discarding them is a vast injustice to users! Mikepellerin^talk 08:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if for some reason Allkpop must be used, the fact remains that it is an unreliable source. Their own disclaimer states they are a gossip site that publishes rumors in addition to facts. I really wish that wasn't the case, but that's how it is. --Random86 (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And until a more reliable resource can be found, it can be used as a placeholder. We attribute all of S&M Entertainment's vocal mouthpiece Heechul as being correct even though he is just speaking as a tool, then we can use this!.

Excellent points, everyone. The situation really is a dilemma. A few points to add:

• It seems it's already agreed that if Allkpop & company give no source for their information, that info cannot be used on Wikipedia. However, in cases when they do give a source, it is imperative that their source be evaluated to see if it is independent & reliable. Korean sources are held to the same standards as English-language ones. The majority of the time, AKP gets their stories from sources that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. However, do you really think most editors are going to bother with those distinctions? If there is a way to get people to use this common sense, then by all means, let's keep using AKP for hard-to-find information, provided they link back to an original source and that source is reliable. But, ahhh good luck with that.
• Allkpop and sites like it are in the business of actively promoting kpop. As has been discussed here and there, they print everything, no matter how trivial. Because editors see it in print, they think that means it can go on Wikipedia. By requiring reliable sources, ones that aren't primarily gossip sites, this provides editors with at least some guidance as to what's appropriate for a Wikipedia and what isn't. So AKP reports the results of the Yet-Another-Kpop-Awards-By-Fans-in-Blah-Blah-Country...did any reliable media report it? If not, the results of those awards probably don't belong on Wikipedia, no matter how accurate they may be. As should be pretty obvious by now, many editors are either unwilling or unable to make such judgments on their own. WP:FART and all that.
• I just need to point out that Mnet is part of CJ's music stuff division (how's that for technical jargon?). They are absolutely positively not independent of a whole bucket full of artists. They dramatically fail the independent requirement for sources. They may be accurate, but they are not independent. That's just something that needs to be in editors' minds at all times when attempting to build balanced articles. And of course, their goal is to promote kpop for financial gain (see the next point below).
• Any site, regardless of affiliation, that specializes in promoting kpop does not provide a balanced body of information. They are promoting this stuff. That means they print what they think people will like to read, so they can make money off ads on their websites and grants from the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports, & Tourism, who pays out insane amounts of money to promote kpop abroad. They are not interested in providing a cross section of what's written in Korean, nor providing a balanced view of any issues or events. They are promoters, not journalists. While this is somewhat true for any media outlet to some extent (money is important, after all), it is the sole driving force of kpop promo sites.
• I've never believed a word that comes out of Heechul's mouth and I don't know anyone that does (well, until now). No offense. :P ^^

I think part of the underlying problem in this situation is the inability or unwillingness of too many editors to be discriminating in how they use the sources that are out there, which makes it difficult to allow dubious sources to be used, provided they only be used when appropriate. There is also a lack of quality journalism about kpop in English or in Korea. :( There has to be some way to make this work! ^^ Shinyang-i (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are taking this 'not independent' argument a bit too far here. Jeez, don't tell me that you need a BBC report to source the tour dates of XY K-pop band, or the attendance number of ZZZ K-pop Festival. Or the title of an upcoming not-yet-published album. Most facts that we want sources for are not scholarly debates on whether the Earth is going round the Sun or vice versa. Yes, if it is a topic that requires to present both sides (like a controversy, a scandal, or whatever), then you need to have some independent sources. But you know what? If it is K-pop, even BBC , the Wall Street Journal and Billboard get their stuff from those 'despicable-to-you' 'not-independent' spources like MWAVE and stuff. Based on your reasoning, none of the English language K-pop outlets are okay to use, which is beyond ridiculous to me. Same with the Korean tourism websites. Even if they promote Kpop and Kdrama, what we normally take from there (like history of a K-pop band, list of awards) etc. are not things you can be biased for. This way nothing a government ever puts online can be used anywhere on the globe, because it's all going to be self-promotion, let it be Latvia's popular culture or the USA's. We are looking to source facts of a celebrity's career. How is for example this: "XYZ started his career as a guitarist in XXX band and then was discovered by TTT Entertainment in 2001 (Source: Visitkorea)" a biased thing? We should be glad that the Korean government provided English language information on their culture. You need to know what you can source from such a website and what not. But most factual information should not be a problem. You cannot really lie about whether kimchi is made with red chilli or blue asparaghus, or whether Bigbang won an award in 2007 or not. Why would anyone on a government website publish false information on such things? They might make cosmetic alterations to numbers about how popular K-pop is worldwide, but for simple facts on culture or celebrity history - I don't see why they cannot be as good as any other source. If possible, yes, we should use multiple sources to back up a claim. But to rule out government website and MWAVE on grounds of not being independent of K-pop, that's ridiculous in my eyes. The please rule out the Grammy Awards website too, cuz it's not independent of the American music scene. he company that owns Billboard also owns the company that produces the American Music Awards and Golden Globe. So Wikipedia should stop using it as an independent source for music.... Nowadays large conglomerates own everything in media and publishing, if you rule them out, we are practically left without any sources! Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)}

I don't want to speak for Shinyang-i, they can speak for themselves, but I don't think anyone is arguing that any source should never be used - all sources can be reliable, depending on what they are being used for. Primary sources can be used to make basic, factual statements. However, they should not be used to make statements about notability. And that doesn't mean that every single incident mentioned in these sources is worth putting into a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of content, not a list of every single thing done by an artist. Shinyang-i hit the nail on the head in their above comment: "I think part of the underlying problem in this situation is the inability or unwillingness of too many editors to be discriminating in how they use the sources that are out there, which makes it difficult to allow dubious sources to be used, provided they only be used when appropriate. There is also a lack of quality journalism about kpop in English or in Korea."

That is the real issue. It's better to establish standards such as "x source is considered unreliable, and make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. This way, new or otherwise inexperienced editors won't be adding sources willy-nilly without evaluating them.

Last, the characterization about conglomerates is completely off base, and is downright wrong in some cases. For instance, Teemeah claimed that the same company that owns Billboard owns the Golden Globe Awards and American Music Awards. That's completely false. Billboard is owned by Prometheus Global Media, Golden Globe by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and the AMAs by by ABC. Of those companies, only ABC is connected with a company running a record label (Disney). However, even ABC is considered an independent, reliable source. It does not promote artists for Disney. If there was a magazine published by, for example, Warner Music Group or Sony/ATV Music Publishing, then we would need to be more careful in how we approached that magazine. The main point though, that I think Shinyang-i and others are trying to make, is that we need to avoid tabloid journalism, and evaluate the use of sources for balance. Accuracy is not so much the question here as importance. While it's true that music media will promote music, we need to determine if the company involved is engaging in actual journalism or merely promotion, which is not always easy to determine, and certainly there is no definite line. I don't quite agree with Shinyang-i that if the source is promoting k-pop, it's automatically unreliable. Sources like Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday are going to promote Christian music, because that's what the specialize in. But, they offer broad, balanced, comprehensive coverage of the subject, and are not directly affiliated with any record label (JFH was associated with Sparrow Records in the past, and still acts as a vendor for music, but their journalism has stayed reliable and independent. Likewise, NRT sells music, but independent of the journalistic wing). And no matter how reliable the source is, whether Robert Christgau, Billboard, or NME, the importance of a particular news item needs to be determined. Not everything that those sources produce needs to be put on Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @3family6:. You understood exactly what I was trying to say. And @Teemeah:, I feel your pain and totally acknowledge that what you say is pretty much true. But... aside from the WP:FART issue that 3family6 also addressed, people use non-independent sources to establish notability, and that's the problem. Mwave is published by Mnet; it is directly linked to multiple music labels. The Korean music industry is unbelievably interconnected with the media and the government; there really is no independent anything. But there's nothing we can do about that; all we can do is at least try to avoid sources that, right in their name, admit they are serving the interests of a certain group and of course avoid sites (English or Korean) that are obviously tabloids. We can't just throw away source requirements because there's nothing else out there. Again, if stuff isn't being talked about in reliable, independent media, maybe it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. :/ Shinyang-i (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Korean music industry is unbelievably interconnected with the media and the government; there really is no independent anything." It's true for Korean language sources aswell, including major newspapers. So how are we going to establish any notability for anything Korean (not just Kpop) if we take your words and rule out these sources. Meaning all sources then? It would be impossible to write an article about anyone or anything ion Korea, because people can point fingers that look this newspaper is owned by X and X is connected to government agency Z so it is not an independent source. If news outlets extensively write about a subject, it is notable. Regardless who owns that news outlet. It's not like only MWAVE writes about K-pop and it's not like they only write about artists that belong to CJ&M. If you can find the same thing in at least 3 different news outlets, it means it should be notable. Regardless of what we think of interconnections, if they are overed in the media in Korea, then they are notable. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

/Bangs head against table/ Go back, reread what I said, and you'll see why what you're saying I said is not what I said. You're taking what I said to a ridiculous extreme, even though I acknowledged all we can do is make the best of a non-ideal situation and not use the most obvious, egregious offenders. And go back and re-read about sources and notability on Wikipedia. Why do we throw the requirement of independence out the window just because you wanna use Mwave? Why do we automatically assume all Korean sources are independent and reliable and capable of establishing notability when no other country's media gets a free pass like that? If you are American by chance, can you imagine automatically allowing stuff like the National Enquirer be used both for accuracy and for establishing notability? Ugh, let's all stop worrying about being the one to "win" what shouldn't even be an argument in the first place. This is really demoralizing. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Teemeah here. We can just go hacking out dozens of sources because one user has come along and declared them all unreliable. We're not working in the sciences here. Something as simple as "X Group performed a concert at Y" is extremely straight forward and shouldn't need the wall street journal backing it up. Cutting us down to all but four sources that they admit rarely consider Kpop as news would have us hacking giant chunks of information out of articles because there is no source. Dozens of extremely notable groups do not get articles in those places so that is clearly overkill on using that small and exclusive a number of sources on notability. This is why wikipedia has no hard and fast rules and cannot be 100% consistent. Because the world is not consistent and uniform. Everything needs to be considered separately. You can't whitewash kpop because seeing words like Maknae in an kpop article annoys people for no legitimate reason. We need to be able to edit these articles not only within wikipedia policies but within the kpop context and the policies cover this. Ausnarnia (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing to only use for sources nor that "one user" is "hacking out dozens of sources." I'm seeing a lot of all-or-nothing reasoning here, as opposed to arguing the merits of specific sources. I haven't worked with K-pop as an editor, and know next to nothing about it, other than the typical American knows. From what I've seen Shinyang-i doing on here is attempting to determine which sources are reliable and which ones are not. If you disagree with Shinyang-i's assessment of a given source, then demonstrate why that assessment was wrong. I'm seeing editors here stating that sources shouldn't be subject to blanket, mass-removals, but they are not giving any indication of those sources reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Further comment: Besides, Shinyang-i mentioned FIVE sources, not four, and admitted that there are probably others.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ausnarnia: This list includes about two dozen reliable sources. How many deal with K-pop, I don't know. But I think that it does show that no-one, at least so far, is arguing that there aren't many good, reliable Korean news sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@3family6: That's actually the list we're talking about cleaning up. :) I've researched the sites and found some lacking in what Wikipedia demands. I'd like others to review them also, and give their opinions based on as much information as we, as a group, can get. Instead, what I'm hearing from too many people is that no source should be disallowed because: kpop. People are harping on about "the four" sources and how it's mean and cruel and limiting and dictatorial (my words), but I was asked what sources are considered most reliable in Korea and I said it: Those four newspapers plus Yonhap news agency. Don't get mad at me for that! That is what the average Korean adult will tell you. Go ask some. That doesn't mean they are the best - that issue has been discussed a million times in a million places. It means among the primary audience for Korean-language newspapers, they have the best reputation for reliability and reporting real news. Don't believe me? Then go research it yourself. I want you to, in case I'm mistaken and so we can get the most possible information. I was asked for my impressions and so I gave them. It's not my fault no one did their own research and assumed I was trying to dictate to everyone! Also, ask several Korean adults for a list reliable, independent online entertainment websites. It's very likely they'll be hard pressed to give you one, because they are mostly on the level of US Magazine or People Magazine in terms of the types of subjects they cover, but much lower in quality and reliability. Go research this yourself! Websites that have tons of clickbait of girls in bikinis at the bottom of the page? If those were English sites, you'd probably immediately label them as tabloids or trashy rags, totally unfit as sources for reliable, notable, or independent of the people they report on. Well, turn off your adblockers and visit Korean online entertainment sites (the Korean ones, not the English ones that translate their stories). The standards are the same. For the English sites, read how they describe themselves. Are they talking largely about commercial opportunities or facilitating meetups between kpop fans? Do they have any connection to another established media outlet? Are they affiliated with the companies/people they write about? Do they translate everything their Korean partners print or only the things they want you to see? Are they specialized in entertainment only? These are the things to pay attention to. For all the sites in that list, gather that information and then share your experiences. If you're unwilling to do that, then can you really call yourself a dedicated editor? You can argue all day that Wikipedia's requirements shouldn't apply to kpop because this isn't academia-level stuff, but I think most editors outside of this insular kpop would would disagree. You're right, kpop isn't rocket science and the sources out there might not be ideal, but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to find the best of what's available and go with that. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: Actually I have checked out those websites and I majored in Journalism so I am pretty good at seeing the sheer amount of media releases filtering through them daily. At no point in time did I claim no source should be disallowed. Feel free to check how many times I have used AKP as a source. I honestly do not think that editors outside of Kpop can understand the nuances of having to create content for a kpop so of course they would have a different opinion. It would be like asking someone who manages NFL pages for input - only marginally useful because they are working in a well covered and clear cut field with many reliable sources, all in English, at their disposal at a moments notice. You cannot remove a conversation about how best to manage Kpop pages from the Kpop world as much as you want to. We aren't swimming in reliable sources even less of them in English, so we need to be a bit more discerning on how we manage it. There is not going to be a one size fits all answer here. And considering this is being used for notabilities sake because those are the regulations. Like we can't even really use the added to rotation criteria because we're just not over there listening or watching to be sure. Additional to that, not every editor can read Hangul so that again limits how far they can look. Perhaps reordering the list into reliable, acceptable and No. Because otherwise we're could realistically end up with most artists as stubs simply because they have to function in a society with a poor journalistic ethic and wikieditors with limited knowledge and resources. That is not doing anything any good. We have to deal with the reality that Entertainment sections of the Korean media is almost the only real sources we have, regardless of their questionable reliability. Obviously have to keep scandals and other major issues to a higher standard, but simple activities and notability will need something more lenient. Ausnarnia (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think 3family6's statements somewhat parallel to what I have argued before. "...I don't think anyone is arguing that any source should never be used - all sources can be reliable, depending on what they are being used for", so yes, we can determine some sources as unreliable, but that does not mean that we have to totally remove all of them. It depends on the context of the information and how we write the article. If we can somehow demonstrate that it is relevant regarding someone's career, then that source can still be used. But this has to be judged case by case. If let's say some editor wants to say that "member A is the "leader" of group ABC", most reliable sources are probably not gonna mention this fact (the position of a member within a group), so the "unreliable source" can still be used in this case. If the source says something like "Group ABC is the biggest Kpop group in history"; obviously, we have to take that statement as a pin of salt with no notability (because how can you determine such thing as "biggest"). I mean, it takes common sense to determine if something sounds outrageous or reasonable. Mwave "might" be unreliable, but we can still use it for a typical song release, right? There is no harm about it. At this point though, I don't know what we should do with Allkpop and Soompi. I mean, we can call some Korean sources as unreliable; however, it is still an original source. Allkpop and Soompi merely are only the "translation", so I think it would be more appropriate to use them as a translation with the original Korean source right next to it. Having them being used as a source alone is probably no longer acceptable at this point, especially since Allkpop has that "gossip" disclaimer.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this post by TerryAlex in many ways. We do know we are working in a tough area with a lot of media play that we need to sort through, but we don't actually have any other options. We're going to have to keep some places and understand that unfortunately under the circumstances it is probably not going to be in English. Keep it to basic facts. "Group ABC is the biggest Kpop Group in History" should just not be here anyway tbh. Even most English writers are going overboard with those kinds of claims. I'd prefer we not have them at all. Ausnarnia (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ausnarnia: I agree with you on this. We are trying to cover a field that is entirely entertainment-oriented, and lacks English coverage. For American music, you can have the major newspapers cover everything, and separate English language magazines. For K-pop, we have what we have. And nt accepting perfrectly fitting sources like Visitkore or Mnet's MWAVE or Kpop Herald (the latter, a Herald Corp affiliate!, on grounds that it 'promotes' kPop) is something that is for me absolutely beyond reason. Again we come back to the point that we don't need a CNN coverage to source simple claims of when a band debuted, what their first album was and where they went ou tour - the usual content of any K-pop artist article. For more serious claims, like for example the JYJ-SM lawsuit, you need better resources, and there are major newspapers that covered it. (But I'm telling you that for example the BBC got their facts on it from Allkpop. Funny that BBC considers it a source they can use but we don't LOL). Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Teemeah News organizations such as BBC can also use personal blogs as a source of information. The difference between BBC and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source with no original research. BBC is both secondary and tertiary, and much of what is does is original research. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it summarizes research that others have done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify for Shinyang-i, his/her whole purpose for this is to give us a guideline on the Korean sources/media and how they work, not that you cannot use any of those sources. We have to realize that not every Korean source out there is reliable (besides the "Main 4" and Yonhapnews), so when we use a source, we have to be judgmental on when, where and how appropriate it would be. With my post earlier, does this seem clear to everyone now? With that said, we do need to reclassify this Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources in a way that makes it easier for everyone to see that only the "Main 4" and Yonhapnews are the reliable ones. We also still have to figure out a way to deal with Allkpop and Soompi, because using those sources alone, like I said, might no longer be appropriate. Do you have anything to add, Shinyang-i?

PS: Kpopherald can be added to that list. --TerryAlex (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't commented much in this discussion, but I've read every comment and I've been thinking about this a lot. Even though the "Main 4" and Yonhap News may be the most reliable and unbiased, I don't think that means the other sources on this list (except Korea.com) are unreliable (e.g. The Korea Herald and The Korea Times). Even Mwave, which is owned by CJE&M, should be a reliable enough source for when songs were released, how high they charted, etc. I'm also not convinced that sites like Newsen are tabloids (I'm not saying you're wrong, Shinyang-i, but I need more proof. Don't misunderstand me.) Obviously Newsen isn't at the level of The Chosun Ilbo, but there may be times where it is appropriate to use it. The main problem with English-language websites like Soompi is they don't cite their sources most of the time, so we can't tell where the information came from (although I have usually been able to find the original source after a strict Google search). There are some K-pop pages on here where 90% of the references are to Allkpop. That doesn't look good, and is something that can be changed. There are actually some K-pop articles that don't use Allkpop/Soompi/etc at all, and it can be done in most cases. One of my long-term goals is to replace most of those kind of references. --Random86 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I like to use Newsen a lot (especially to reference the old news). Another problem with Soompi and Allkpop is they both look like a blog, even the "author" of those articles have names like these "ck525" and "rughydrangea". How can this be appropriate?--TerryAlex (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's another good point. Real news sites usually show the author's name, and they would never have user names like that. --Random86 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No news site of any legitimacy would just post half baked translations of other peoples journalism anyway. For English I have been referring people to wikikpop a lot lately. While it still looks a lot like a blog, if you check the articles it is running itself as an actual entertainment news site. So yeah, lots of press releases, but cleanly translated. Straight news and interviews with names rather than usernames. I've also seen no fluffy opinion pieces or click bait on there. Also it covers a lot more artists than most English blog sites do anyway. They tend to completely ignore the not internationally super-famous because it gets them little extra traffic. I think for English translations we could consider looking at that one and it's potential to be useful. Ausnarnia (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice find! It looks pretty good, and I'm glad they have the standard-for-Korean-businesses info at the bottom and use real names. What I wish is they had an 'about us' page with a statement of their business model (or whatever it's called) and who they're affiliated with. But it looks pretty good. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please join discussion about edit warring on G-Dragon's article

There is edit warring going on at the G-Dragon article about whether or not to include G-Dragon's Instagram photo in blackface. It was picked up by the Western media. One of the editors involved posted a request for help on my talk page. Please contribute to a discussion at Talk:G-Dragon. This is a BLP article and race is a touchy issue, so it needs the input of experienced editors. Please contribute. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Learn to read between the lines :)

If a website mostly features pictorials about boobies, it's probably not appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. It's not that boobies are bad, but this is a sure-fire way to identify a tabloid or a "we will print ANYTHING to get you to our site" website. This applies whether it's their own stories or tons of clickbait at the bottom. Seoul.co.kr may be a reliable site for some stuff, but their entertainment section sure isn't: http://en.seoul.co.kr/ (They're also sponsoring a "K-pop Cover Dance Festival"...yeah. Again, anything they think will attract visitors to the site...) This is not real journalism here. What they say may be true...ish, but it's also complete trivia/trash, the kind of stuff we don't need any more of. So frustrating. Because, of course, it's on the 'reliable sites' list. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't actually been to that site before. Obviously not quality journalism there. --Random86 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: I have been to a lot of sites and I felt like those type of ads were normal in South Korea. And the reliable sources list isn't always going to be perfect. My idea would be if a section of the article uses a section you feel isn't reliable: Get input (like you're doing now) or replace it with a reliable reference. I can imagine the sources for adult actors and the problems that their contributors are having. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jay2kx:, yeah, it's so common on Korean sites, ugh. But I think if it's the focus of the site or prominently featured like that, it does say something where their focus is, and it won't tend to be on accuracy, important info, etc, it will be on titillating gossip. :( Making a good reliable source list for SK is totally hard, you got that right! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: That's why I would skip certain news section(s) if I feel it isn't reliable. Easy to figure that out in English but difficult in Korean. Thank goodness we have Korean speaking contributors in the WikiProject. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The big problem we have is most of the kpop editors don't speak Korean, and don't know how to discriminate between significant news and total garbage. That's why this reliable sources thing is so hard; if we allow sources for some things but not others, most editors still use them for everything. It all seems kind of hopeless. Shinyang-i (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of listing nationalities of bi-national pop music group

You are invited to participate in a discussion about the best way to describe the nationalities of bi-national group Exo (band). There has been a recent edit war on the subject. Join in here: Talk:Exo (band). Thanks for your input! Shinyang-i (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on this AFD, please! Absolutely not controversial

Can I get some comments on this AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JYJ Euro tour 2014 The article is a total hoax. If you read the AFD, you'll see that it's my fault it didn't get removed through PROD, for which it was totally appropriate. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Song/album reviews on Kpop articles

I've been reading up on what kind of reviews should be included on song and album reviews. Here is some of what I've found:

Per MOS:ALBUM, "A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album, as documented by reliable secondary sources such as reviews, books, or reputable articles that discuss the album. Be sure to note minority opinions as well, properly cited. Also, the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture should be included to further establish notability.

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES."

This brings me to wonder if reviews from Allkpop, Seoulbeats, and the ones usually cited on kpop articles are appropriate, since they are not considered reliable sources and have demonstrated no qualifications for reviewing music. (Or maybe they have - can you help research this?) Are some of these sources borderline personal blogs, shared by more than one individual? (disclaimer: I personally know someone who used to "work" for more than one of the kpop sources of which you've all heard; she was not a journalist with any training or background in music. She was just someone who liked kpop and had decent writing skills.)

Also, if you don't already know, song reviews made in context of a review of the entire album/EP cannot be used to establish notability for the songs. Songs must pass general notability guidelines on their own, not as part of the album/EP they come from, and most songs do not merit articles on Wikipedia per WP:SONG, WP:NSONG. A certain editor in good faith created a lot of song articles for SM Entertainment artists, and the efforts to AFD just a few of them as non-notable have been kind of ugly (please comment on kpop AFDs if you haven't already). The articles aren't really bad (he/she has clearly made a real effort), but all their info should be folded into improving the relevant album/EP articles per Wikipedia policy. I no longer know what to do with these articles (i.e. I'm tired of fighting).

Anyway, because reviews are part of establishing notability and we have a lot of very borderline-notable subject articles in kpop, let's please discuss what review sources should be acceptable for inclusion in articles. Note: because of strict defamation laws in Korea, there are no such things as "real" reviews of music, movies, restaurants, or any other subject in Korean. Comments by the media have to be nice or not said at all, under threat of lawsuit. This includes non-Korean-language publications if the writer is located in Korea. So don't bother looking for real Korean reviews. (Research it yourself if you please, I don't wanna explain it all here.) Shinyang-i (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You know these claims about how Korean journalists cannot write about anything freely is a bit overstretched and pardon my French but pretty much stupid. You are basically saying that in South Korea there is no freedom of speech for newspapers. Whatever your own thoughts are, these cannot be used as claims not to use Korean paprs as source for music articles, becuase "they are oblidged to be nice". This is your own research, and since you are so well wersed in policies, you might want to take a look at the "no original research" policy again. I start to feel like you are trying to distort the policies here and get your own opinion through. If these Korean laws would be so strict that nobody is willing to write articles about anything in a negative manner, we wouldn't have any articles against the government (and there are tons) and Dispatch wouldn't even EXIST in the fist place, since their whole existence is defamation in itself with their bunch of private life gossips. I have never heard of any agency sue a journalist for saying that "this albums is not good" or "this song is badly written". They wouldn't be able to write about plagiarism either, and they do. I don't really understand what your problem is, but I feel that you are trying to restrict sources based on your own opinion about Korean media. Korean newspapers, music magazines are legit sources. What you believe is irrelevant to Wikipedia policies. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 13:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you pathologically unable to address the real issues at hand? I've had about enough of your indignant attitude when I say anything less than stellar about Korea. Don't believe me? Instead of assuming I've got some agenda, why don't you go research this stuff yourself? I don't care what you have and haven't heard of. Go check out Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I don't make stuff up, and I'll thank you to watch your damn mouth. Also, your bitching is pretty tangential to the main thrust of the issue I raised - whether or not the reviews currently being used on most kpop articles are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The additional bit about defamation laws in Korea was a heads up to keep people from spending tons of time looking for music reviews in Korean. But please be my guest if you want to go hunting for them. Keep in mind reviews from vendors are not acceptable under WP:CHARTS. Seriously, check your attitude because I have seen you add little constructive content to any of these discussions; you mostly just yell about how you don't like the things I say. Guess what? Korea, like every other country, isn't perfect. Accept it or prepare to be miserable all the time. Or better yet, ignore it and say something useful. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS on jargon and non-English terms

Wikipedia's Manual of Style states to use plain English as much as possible and to avoid jargon. This means not using Korean words when there are English ones that convey the exact same information. Only use jargon or another language when the idea absolutely cannot be explained correctly without it. Therefore, according to WP's MOS, it is not appropriate to use the term "maknae" in a kpop article, because the word "youngest" conveys exactly the same information. Additionally, use of "stage" instead of performance is also not appropriate, as it is Konglish/kpop jargon, and does not convey information better than the standard English word." There is actually quite a lot of stuff in kpop articles that I'm seeing which are really only understandable to kpop fans or people who otherwise already know something about kpop. Kpop is not such a specialized subject that special knowledge or extra background should be required to understand the vast majority of articles. A person shouldn't have to read the kpop article just to understand what is meant by "comeback stage" (the average person asks, "comeback from what? why don't they just call it a debut of the song/album/whatever?"). I hope can all work together to re-word articles as we find them to remove excessive kpop jargon and make sure all articles use standard English understandable to audiences of any background, per WP:MOS. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up to statements above. IMO, "comeback" the way it's used in kpop is also unnecessary jargon. I'm so used to it that it didn't occur to me that the unusual usage of this term within this single industry is confusing to pretty much anyone who's not a kpop fan. Per WP policy, that's not okay. It should be reworded as well, IMO. People shouldn't have to the read the kpop article to understand things that can be explained easily with standard English. Thoughts and comments? Shinyang-i (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's better to say "Group ABC started their promotional activities on ...". But in my opinion, all K-pop artists promote their songs on music shows, I think it's pretty unnecessary to say "Group ABC made their first comeback performance on Inkigayo on June 2, M! Countdown on June 3,...". If they win, then say "They won a total of 5 wins...", but there is no point to "list" (again) their performance appearances one-by-one like that. (We just all know).--TerryAlex (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Mention the debut performance and that's that. Per-show "comebacks" are useless info for any audience but the most hardcore fans. And summarize the wins, per your suggestion. Guess we should make these changes as we come across them in articles. Any other opinions? Shinyang-i (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think all mention of music shows should be removed. Someone who is new to K-pop might not know how the songs are promoted. I think it's fine to say something like "the song was first performed on Music Core" or "promotion began with a performance on M! Countdown". Obviously we don't need to list every show the song was performed on. --Random86 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess if we really want, a mention about it on the song/album's article is fine, but not necessarily on the main artists' articles (Big Bang does not need any of it, I admire them, they don't need a gazillion non-sense song articles). We can say something like "The group promoted on various South Korean music shows. They won two wins on M! Countdown, 2 wins on Inkigayo".--TerryAlex (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work if the song/album doesn't have an article. Plenty of songs never win on music shows as well. I don't think someone should have to read the song/album article to figure out the song was promoted on music shows. Unless I'm misunderstanding something you're saying? --Random86 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just making a general example. But I guess, there must be a way that we can generalize it, so people understand it right away that they always promote on music shows (except for some rare cases) so we don't have to repeat it everytime?--TerryAlex (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted about this "comeback" thing on Exo article's talk page about a month ago and was invited to share my opinion here so here I am. I raised this issue after I saw someone added some info about the group having a comeback soon and I was like "Comeback? Aren't they currently on tour?" and realized that it wasn't the first time I've heard the term comeback used like this within K-pop world. Outside of K-pop, the term comeback is only used for bands who have had an actual hiatus or at least a prolonged break. It seems that in K-pop a comeback means a single debut or an album release so a group could be said to be having a comeback even though they've literally been active and even on tour. So yes the general public might be confused with the usage of this word as I was. It's not encyclopedic and therefore should be avoided.--Krystaleen 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think comeback is a pretty much widespread term to use in Kpop, you can link to the K-pop#Marketing section when such a word occurs in an article. I think we cannot avoid this term, since K-pop agencies also use it to refer to the next promotion cycle in their press releases and such, so it can occur in direct quotes too. We can limit as much as it is possible, but they might still occur in quotes, and they it should be linked to the explanation in the K-pop article. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of rabid masses of fankids. :) Kpop agencies release information in Korean. When they use "comeback", they are speaking/writing Korean. "Comeback", the way it's used in this context, is a Korean-ization of an English word; it's not English in this context. Why should that one word be left in what is now essentially Korean? Of course language is always changing, but "comeback" in this context has no general acceptance in English yet. Again, according to Wikipedia policy the only time jargon or non-English is to be used is when no other word will do or for subjects that are highly technical and would be useless if every term was defined in plain English every time it was used. Kpop is not highly technical and every concept can be explained very, very easily in plain English; the articles will only be better for being written in plain English. I don't think you will get any editor outside kpop who agrees that kpop should get to use its own special jargon for absolutely no reason. People learned to call "mini-albums" by the more standard term "EP", they can learn to use English for this, too. Shinyang-i (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.--Krystaleen 14:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

So I notice another thing that is kind of bothering me: Naming Conventions for Korean Articles (ie: how to title individuals/group names). There is a naming conventions policy WP:NCP but I notice that many of the articles aren't consistent with naming. I know this also applies to other articles, but what should we decide on with how to name various pages so that we can have a bit more consistency. I know there will still be exceptions and it won't be perfect, but hey, improvement with article names are worth a try. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I've run across some all-caps in titles, which I've moved. Also, people's names often are romanized 20 different ways within articles, so I just pick one and make them all the same (I stop caring about which is the most "right" at some point). What else are you seeing? Shinyang-i (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Member of Girls Generation is a prime example - Kim Tae-yeon, Jessica Jung, Sunny (singer), Tiffany (South Korean singer), Kim Hyo-yeon, Kwon Yuri, Choi Soo-young, Im Yoona and Seohyun. The American members Jessica, Sunny and Tiffany are fine with the titled names, and Seohyun is also perfect as her real name and stagename is different. However, with Taeyeon, Hyoyeon and Sooyoung, their names are hyphenated as per the convention of Korean Names. Yoona and Yuri's article titles aren't hyphenated. This is just inconsistency. The members of Beast, 4Minute and B.A.P have member pages hyphenated, but Super Junior and Shinee generally aren't. I just think individual members' names are so inconsistent, I don't know where to begin. Can also Jay2kx, Evaders99 and In ictu oculi advise on this too if you want? Thanks. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I learned a while back that the rule on Wikipedia is to have the hyphen for the first name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Given name--TerryAlex (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes I've noticed a fair bit of variation but hadn't put much thought to it, given the state of articles in general. I do think a refresher course in proper name romanization could be of benefit. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To quote (Korean)#Given name: Given name Koreans variously spell two-syllable given names as a joined word or separated by a hyphen or a space, with the second syllable occasionally capitalized. If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized (e.g., Hong Gil-dong). As per above: If the artist generally signs or posts their name in the conventional English format (no hyphen) then we need to leave their names be. It is their personal preference and an established English spelling.Mikepellerin^talk 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate some feedback

Hello wiki project Korea editors I am a new editor of sorts. I have a sandbox article of the kpop group GOT7's videography and want some feedback since there is very little standard for what is acceptable in these articles. Most kpop groups have filmographies but they were horrible references for what to include...the exo filmography has a giant list dump of guest appearances. So I made a videography which was the standard for American artist. I need feedback on the things I have included and any other problems with the article since there was no standard for how these list should be done and it is my first article. Thank you to anyone who looks at My Sandbox . Peachywink (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The list looks good to me. I don't work with K-pop, but I've done videography lists before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, It's nice to hear I didn't completely botch it, like I thought I would.Peachywink (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Record charts

All info is per WP:CHARTS.

Korea

• Hanteo is to be used only for releases before 2008. Do not include them on articles on songs or albums released 2008 or after. Remove if you see inappropriate use.
• Gaon digital charts already includes data from the download, BGM, and streaming charts. In other words, download, BGM, and streaming charts are not to be included in articles if the digital charts are included. Remove if you see them.

Other stuff

• Single-vendor charts are not allowed on Wikipedia. These include Bugs, Olleh, Soribada, Melon, Dosirak (all Korea), HMV and Tower Records (various countries), KKBox (Hong Kong and Taiwan), and Five Music (Taiwan). Delete them if you see them.
• Information is needed about mainland China charts and how they obtain their data. Help?

Thank you. Let's work together to clean up the charts listing for kpop songs. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I read WP:CHARTS and do not see these recommendations you are mandating. Please outline them specifically with "clickable" references from the article. Thank you. Mikepellerin^talk 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the comment by MikePellerin I deleted from the middle of my existing comment. Per policy, I should not have deleted, only moved it. Sorry 'bout that - here it is. Shinyang-i (talk)

Please provide a 'valid' link to where Single Vendor charts are not allowed on WP. Mikepellerin^talk 05:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHARTS#::Recommended charts -- WP:CHARTS#General guidelines, under "single-vendor/single network charts" and "dependent (component) charts -- http://gaonchart.co.kr/chart/digital.php Don't insert your comments in the middle of others' comments, as you've been told many, many times now. I deleted your other comment, since you just repeated it while claiming I didn't post a valid link. As an editor, you should read that entire page anyway. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you don't like these guidelines, please discuss them at the talk page of WP:CHARTS, as I did not make them up myself and am not the one mandating them. I am merely clarifying them with regard to charts commonly used in kpop. I have made a request there for them to clarify the dependent charts explicitly with regard to Gaon in the article, as most kpop articles don't read any Korean. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not insert my comments into other comments. I merely inserted a comment into an appropriate section. Big difference!

You inserted it in the middle of my comment, between the beginning of my comment and my signature. You can't do that. I don't know how many other ways this can be explained to you, as I'm not the first person to tell you to follow posting rules. Speaking of which... sign your posts, dude. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about you, so, that ain't happening!

I don't have too many personal feelings about you. But, they're not my rules. If you "give a crap" about Wikipedia, then follow them, please. Don't make this personal. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources must be inspected closely

While copyediting the grammar and irrelevant information on many song articles, I started to notice that some editors are very much misrepresenting their sources and are being sneaky about it. Both MWAVE and Korea.com have message board-type sections full of user-uploaded trash. These are like any other message boards - totally unacceptable as Wikipedia sources. Yet editors are using this content, hoping the URL/name of the source will fool people into thinking they are "reliable" sources. Additionally, I am seeing a lot of sources that do not say what the articles claim they say. One Shinee song article claimed the song was a promotional single for the album, yet the source was actually a fan-uploaded link on korea.com to a youtube video of the song being performed somewhere. The editor tried to make it look like the info came from a reliable source and they did massive original research by claiming the song being performed = promotional single. The sources on these song articles need to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, especially since many of them are currently being AFD'd and the rest probably deserve to be. Lying really pisses me off, as does intentional misrepresentation in an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Shinyang-i (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide valid links where this has been done, so Editors can evaluate it. You state "lying pisses you off" It pisses us off as well when it is used for ones own gain. Cheers. Mikepellerin^talk 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't like lying, either. I'd recommend visiting the two websites I mentioned so you can see, too, how they contain both website-generated and visitor-uploaded sections. Then, simply be on the lookout for misuse of the wrong types of content from those sources on articles here on Wikipedia. I don't see a need for you to visit the exact article I was talking about, since I don't want to embarrass any one editor. (For the record, I didn't look at who made the edit inserting that info.) If you think I'm lying for my own gain (whatever that would be), then you can simply not believe that such an article existed. :) It does not change the fact that these websites contain sections that are not eligible for use as reliable sources - that's simply something all responsible kpop editors need to be aware of. Happy editing! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced birth dates in biographies

After taking a quick survey of Korean pop singers' articles, I noticed that the vast majority of them have no reference at all for date of birth, which is a problem. The ones that were referenced used either the entertainment company's website or Naver profiles. I am assuming that the Naver/Daum/MelOn/etc profiles come from the entertainment companies. I made an inquiry at WP:RSN, but there has only been one response so far.

Does anyone know of any other possible sources for birth dates? I know Moscow Connection mentioned knowing of third-party sources for Girls' Generation. -revi, do you know anything?

Somehow I just saw this, but I went back and read the discussion at the noticeboard. It's a problem outside of kpop as well, as if I recall correctly for awhile Janet Jackson was getting younger every year. The Korean government keeps scrupulous records about births but either that info isn't public or is confusing in some way, because age "scandals" occur constantly with celebrities there. Every day at least one kpop birthday gets edited on my watchlist, so either some editors are careless when inputting the data originally or there is conflicting info out there. There's also the issue of parents in Korea being able to register their child's birthday as whatever they want it to be for any reason, which leads to confusion as well (TVXQ/JYJ and Shinhwa fans have experienced this) since the person literally has two "real" birthdays (one actual, one legal). I don't like it but I think an agency website and its derivative sources are the best that can be done. There simply aren't going to be real third-party sources of birthdays. I do think every single birthday needs a "reliable-as-it's-gonna-get" source, though, and unreferenced birthdays should be deleted on sight in line with BLP issues. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Apart from having the birth certificate (which could be forged) I feel it is hard to get a reliable birth reference for anyone. Majority of american actors and actresses and musical artist article pages don't seem to even bother to refernce ithe dates they give. I think company profiles are the best you can get, even though it might be a lie it's more than is normally given. Peachywink (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Some US states, such as Texas and California, have birth records available to the public, but that is not common. I agree that most of the time, we have to use the source that is as "reliable-as-it's-gonna-get". If there is conflicting information (like the legal vs. actual birth date), this can be noted like it is on Mariah Carey. --Random86 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think those kinds of discrepancies do eventually get noted, but initially (until the artist has clarified it) it can be a source of confusion and cause of frequent birthday editing. I remember huge edit wars on Kim Junsu because all the fans knew the situation but no one would cough up a source. What I wanna know is why there are so many edits when that isn't the case. I'm serious, I wanna know, ha ha. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Company profiles and interviews are the best we can get our hands on. No third party source will know it better and in amny cases we see in my country too that even encyclopedias like Who is Who make notorious mistakes on birth dates. We had cases of celebrities sending emails to OTRS clarfying that no, the date newspapers posted is not right. Junsu's birth date mysery was solved by himself, when he told the story on television. Same for Jaejoong's. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 12:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Revising some article titles

By the way, why do we still list Jaejoong and Junsu by their first names? And Yoochun? None of them ever released anything under their first names. Junsu released his albums as XIA, and as a musical actor he uses his birth name. Jaejoong released his albums under his legal name Kim Jaejoong and uses the same as an actor. Yoochun doesn't have solo albums and as an actor he uses his full name. I know that we have the "most known" naming policy but I think this does not justify in caseof JYJ, for example. Hyuna or Daesung qualifies, as they release material using their first names as stage name. I suggest that we ranme the JYJ members' articles to their full names. Korean media also refers to them in sources by full name, and not by first name. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 12:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. I was just thinking about that exact issue. Because agencies treat group members as products to be known only by one name, somehow that behavior has transferred to Wikipedia. Jaejoong was never known as "Hero" and it was so embarrassing when his page was called that. He was known as "Youngwoong Jaejoong" (the whole name), which I guess could qualify as "Hero Jaejoong". But anyway... A thousand times yes to this. Junsu is an insanely common name in Korea and he is definitely not known by that single name there (it's always Kim Junsu or Xia/h Junsu). I actually propose taking this a step further for people beyond these three, but let's not travel that road yet. One step at a time - let's get the JYJ members changed pronto. No one in their right mind is gonna object to it. I'd consider it uncontroversial at this point,but maybe a brief discussion-starter should go on their talk pages? Any other opinions? Shinyang-i (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest boldly moving the articles. If anyone objects, they can be moved back until a move discussion takes place. --Random86 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there are various redirects already in existence. For instance, "Kim Junsu" already redirects to "Junsu". From a technical point of view, I know I don't know how to make that change correctly. Teemeah, are you experienced with that kind of situation? If so, go for it! Shinyang-i (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Page moves are very easy, via the drop-down menu. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. I would do it myself but I'm not familiar with JYJ. --Random86 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that "Kim Junsu", the desired name for the article, already exists as a redirect to "Junsu." Isn't the procedure different in such a case? Shinyang-i (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's what happens:"You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." I'll ask Drmies to help, I guess. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Go here to request move Wikipedia:Requested moves--TerryAlex (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. That doesn't usually happen even if there is an existing redirect. In that case, the move will have to be requested. --Random86 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, the backlog on RM is a mile long, and one of the advantages of being an admin is I don't have to draw a number there. BTW, I'd gladly help out on RM, but the paperwork is way too complicated. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh what timing, I just posted this on your talk page. Do you think we should file it officially instead? Shinyang-i (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Teemeah:, check it out! Drmies took care of it! (Jaejoong was already done). Yoochun is at Park Yoo-chun and Junsu is at Kim Junsu (Kim Jun-su is someone else, so efforts at disambiguation are needed.) I'm so glad you brought this up, Teemeah! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the fast job :) Now if all the names could be according to Revised Romanization, that would be even better, but I think that's an even bigger job to do... Revised Romanization is the official single accepted romanization in the ROK, but most of the Korean article titles are according to whatever random romanization agencies deem fit for themselves... I know there had been a discussion on this previously but I still think that it should not be according to what agencies think is right but what the official transcription is, just like in case of Pinyin in Mandarin Chinese. So ideally it should be Bak Yucheon and Kim Jaejung. And Korean given names should be written as one word, and not with a hyphen, to distiguis from chinese practices :)) Okay, okay, I know... this would need a broader discussion and probably some official amendment to naming conventions in general. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel your at the lack of consistency, but I don't think that'll ever happen because no one in Korea uses RR or any standard romanization for names, and the names would be virtually unrecognizable to readers. Right now the MOS for Korean names says to use the hyphen. My personal preference is without, too, but I actually find RR is a terrible romanization system, and is quite unclear for pronunciation uses. Countries' own romanizations tend to be the worst possible systems, I find, ha ha. Right now I'd settle for having people listed by their full names instead of cheapening these performers by calling them just by their given names. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

References for filmography/ videography

Hi there everyone I need some help finding a good example of a Korean musician with a good videography or filmography that is Referenced mind you my own attempt to creat one was rejected Got7 draft Videography. The editor said referencing official videos does not prove notability for M/V and that the M-wave articles are all too short and I use m-wave too much. So I need to find a good videography so I can see what was sourced. Mind you all the artist I have checked so far have terrible references on their separate videographies/filmographies, or completely unreferenced sections of on there main pages : EXO, SHINEE, 2NE1, Girls Generation, Beast, MBLAQ, WINNER, Super Junior. And this brings me to my second question...HOW did these pages get approved? It isn't something where the fans just messed up the pages later...these articles NEVER had good sources or they would still be there. Am I just super unlucky and got a tough editor or is there some trick people are using, because honestly I just don't understand how mine is worse.Peachywink (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding sources is so hard. I know how you feel totally. Many people make pages without going through the approval process, hence there are many bad articles on Wikipedia. Filmographies & videographies seem especially tough, as there don't seem to be specific guidelines for them. Thus they vary a lot with the type of content they have and their quality, and many people just try to use them as link directories (which they aren't supposed to be). I think the idea is that if secondary sources have talked about an appearance, then it is considered encyclopedic. But outside of gossip & preview articles, the media doesn't say much about individual TV appearances (which are ubiquitous in kpop) so most of them aren't encyclopedic. There has been a movement toward getting rid of or seriously editing many such articles, but there aren't many editors and it's a slow (and often argumentative) process. Don't get discouraged! Work on improving existing Got7 articles, instead, is my suggestion. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess I'm just feeling discouraged that because of a cultural difference in reporting popular western artist can have all there music videos and tv series appearance listed. There is usually some site ( rolling stone, mtv, slant, ect.) that will critique and review those artist videos even the bad ones...but that doesn't really exist for Korean videos even when the artist is popular or the video was thought provoking. Still without proper links or sources dozens of those pages do manage to exist...but not mine. I will take your advice to just keep working on what I can but It just stinks that I'm being told no, when I'm actually trying to create a proper filmography...but that bar keeps getting raised. :( Peachywink (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's important to remember also that notability applies to the article topic, not all article content. If you can demonstrate that the discography of Got7 is notable, which, if Got7 has a Wikipedia article and is notable (mentioned in third-party, reliable sources), should not be a problem, than primary sources, such as YouTube links to music videos or a discography list on the band website, are acceptable as reliable sources for individual entries on the list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I will ask the admin that rejected my article about it since I've learned never to trust "should not be a problem" at this point. I've been adding more references...(mostly in Korean since that's what I'm down to) to prove the notability and am hoping if I add enough good references and explanatory prose I can get it through when I resubmit. Also to those who worked on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources thank you it's been helping me a lot. Peachywink (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, Korean sites really don't talk much about TV appearances except for the ubiquitous preview articles, which occur for nearly all shows regardless of guest and are thus not useful. Because kpop artists are on TV constantly, there is little to distinguish one appearance from another, importance-wise. Mwave is a TV station and part of a record label who generates that kind of content, so it's natural for them to report on those appearances; therefore in this case they are not a reliable source independent of the subject. @3family6:, I think you may have been confused, as Peachywink wants to make a filmography/videogaphy list for Got7, not a discography. The problem with these lists is they usually seek to list every single TV appearance these artists have ever made, which in kpop makes them unimaginably long indiscriminate lists. Kpop artists are on TV nearly every day; even un-famous artists get on TV. (It's the reverse of the West; in the West, you get famous and then get on TV. In kpop, you get on TV and then maybe get famous. It's just how the industry works.) So in order to make the lists meaningful and not indiscriminate, appearances should be notable in some way, meaning they received coverage in the non-TV-gossip media (probably because something unusual happened on the show), or should be a show on which the artist was a regular host or guest. Even then, most potential entries on such lists deserve discussion and may be better served in prose. Overall, Got7 is a pretty new group and there just aren't likely to be that many individual TV appearances worthy of inclusion on such a list. Please don't feel singled-out; as I said before, there are very few editors working on fixing up unreferenced and out-of-control articles, so it's a really slow process. The continued existence of "bad" lists is in no way intended as favoritism toward those artists or discrimination against Got7. Please please keep up your willingness to talk with others and your hard work on Wikipedia! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Satrting the indents over so it doesn't get crazy. Thanks again Shinyang-i, even when I whine here I do listen to what others say and keep working at it because I truly do feel they have notable appearances...and untill I try I don't know it's impossible to prove that. Maybe that makes me a crazy fan but it also makes me willing to work until my article somehow reaches a point where it can be approved. So I went back added more references and some prose with aditional references showing the importance of the group and their activities and asked the admin to look at it again. He replied "I think you've got it covered. Someone else might disagree, but why don't you resubmit, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Nice job, good effort and follow-through." YAY!!! Peachywink (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the discography/filmography confusion. Just so I can understand this, what type of TV appearances are we talking about? Cameos in a show? Or advertising or news show appearances? Because I think the latter two would be excluded from most lists anyway - typically film and videography lists are for TV serials, films, and/or music videos or similar mediums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know, as I said I was trying to make a good article unlike what you normally see. I only included 7 variety show appearances, 1 is the groups own tv show, 3 are shows a member was casted in as a regular, the others I discuss in the talk section why I decided those appearances were worthy of inclusion but I also invite people to discuss it with me. I also include the group's music videos, their reality program, and dramas that more than one member had a role in. I figured less than that it should be in the persons solo page and there was only one member who had that possibility to begin with. here is the page if you want a look Got7 videography Peachywink (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@3family6:, these types of lists usually consist mostly of appearances on Korean variety shows, which most artists guest on many, many, many times. Peachywink, the group's own show surely had been discussed at length in their own article, hasn't it? Music videos should probably also mostly go in their article, as otherwise these lists also wind up being music video link directories. There was a film/videography article that once had over 100 links on it - every single music video and every episode of that group's own variety show (on their own youtube channel) were linked. The entire article got deleted because it was pure advertising. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Variety show appearances shouldn't be included, unless it's significant (which was already mentioned above). That's not what a filmography list is for. Also, the correct title of the article should be "filmography," not "videography" - the latter would be more appropriate for either a list purely of music videos (the need for which would be extremely rare - I'm thinking something along the lines of Tangerine Dream level of output warranting something like that), or, more commonly, a list of videos directed by the article subject. I'm going to be bold an move the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I wouldn't even include music videos in the list. They should go in a discography list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats not the common standards for where to place music videos. And if by changeing the name you plan to delete them I would ask that you please change it back as that is the appropriate title for what the list is, and MV go in the videographies. I discussed all this in the pages talk section btw when I created the page and it is still there. Thank youPeachywink (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

MAJOR Help needed on the Roommate page

I'm not even sure how this happened but someone has been doing horrible edits on the Roommate article and furthermore they've been doing it in the wrong language. I am goingt to try to see if I can find the last point where it was actually somewhat okay but I might not be experienced enough to.

Looks like it's been taken care of! I wonder if an editor just forgot which Wikipedia they were on?  :)(psst, don't forget to sign your posts) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

oops my bad and yes I think the person must have forgotten but...if i came across an entire page in another language personally I would check which wiki I was on first lol. and sorry about the sign again...I have a tendency to make a lot of mistakes when typing fast...or slow..or always really. XDPeachywink (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

to Random 86

hei what the matter? what supposed i do? so i can update Suzy and the tho other photo profile in wiki? maybe you can help me to explain, its 'll be pleasure, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viave44 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Viave44: Hi! You cannot upload photos from the web unless the copyright holder (photographer) has explicitely released the photos under free licence. If the website you take the photos from does NOT include a creative commons licence that allows commercial reuse and modification, you simply cannot upload photos here. This is not a blog, a news site or facebook, we have an image use polciy and every editor, user has to accept it. Please take some time to review the policies that the fellow editor already linked for you, but you deleted the message. --Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)