Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 3

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

EP's

I wanted to know if EP's should be included under the discography section of Kpop groups?! I've seen on other boygroup and band pages that only the full albums get included and everything else on the discography page. Any ideas? As for me I think albums are more than enough, after all the most groups and artists have their own discography page.--46.115.153.15 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If the artist has a separate discography article, then EPs should be listed there and not in the discography section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What about artists that only have EPs (mini albums) and no studio albums? --Random86 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Then that would be acceptable to list them in the article. If the discography is short enough, say a few EPs and singles, the artist probably doesn't even need a discography article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The criteria for notability for musicians actually require that any artist has released at least two full albums (on major label), so if discography only has singles and mini-albums (EPs) then the page is clearly candidate for deletion unless the artist is notable by one of the not-so-many other reasons for inclusion. Monni (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, but if they have had a single or album on any country's national music chart, then that counts towards notability, too.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BAND does not require that any artist has released at least two full albums (on major label). It says "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Two full albums on a major label is one of twelve criteria listed. Some groups have mostly EPs but still satisfy criteria 1 and 2. --Random86 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You are correct except that the wording "may be" doesn't mean that the discography itself is notable... Trivial lists or sections in article are itself candidate for deletion/removal even if other parts of the article meet the criteria... Monni (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion listing needs more voices

I would appreciate some more opinion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XIA 1st World Tour Concert‎. Thank you! Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Old news, but I just now saw this. I'd have voted keep, for the record. This article is better sourced than most tours and this tour had some unique things about it, it was a pretty big deal. But, the article needs more content about the tour itself and why it's notable (other than the usual "fastest sell out" or "most thing-or-that sold" claims that show up on nearly every kpop tour article) - always very tough to find for any kpop tour, but I bet it's out there. If anyone knows Spanish, that might be an avenue. The thing that's hard about these kpop tour articles is they all look alike (agency PR + list of dates + sometimes set lists), so sometimes notable things get AFD'd too. That's why there's a review process. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: In the Korean articles there would be a lot of info, but my Korean is not fluent. I have a basic undertanding (TOPIK I exam) and can read, so I can find, with a dictionary, a certain exact piece of information I am looking for (like a date, an event, a name, a short statement), but it is not sufficient to expand articles. Would be good would good to develop the article but we have to face reality about the available English language sources not being very much loaded with tons of facts. Reality is that we can iclude only what we find. Notability is already established. I promise, once I get to a decent level in Korean (in progress), I'll do my best to exapnd these articles. Until then we can only hope someone with better Korean skills will pop up and hopefully not be scared away by these ridicoulously tight gazillion rules to improve on Korean articles. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 11:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel. I wish I had clones so I could quickly improve a million different articles. Using Korean (especially written) is not easy for me, and I cannot be precise with fine details. Don't be scared off by rules; in reality, they aren't rules so much as previously-established consensuses. They could potentially be changed, but not by arguing merely with the person trying to enforce them; a person would have to go to the heart of Wikipedia and argue for such changes. There are many norms I don't like, but I just accept that's how things are on Wikipedia and if I want it differently I can make my own website. But when it comes to enforcement, the essence of a collaborative effort is that when one person does something without knowing a rule, someone else who does know that rule comes along and makes a change to correct it. But it always seems to feel like an attack when someone says "this broke a rule so I'm changing it"; I know it's felt that way to me when I'm on either end. On the receiving end, I've just had to suck it up and accept I was wrong and the change is an improvement. On the giving end, well, that's harder because a lot of people hate me and everyone wants to kill the messenger. But anyway, LOL. Right now, things are just kind of tough because there is so, so, so much kpop content that was created without regard to Wikipedia's non-negotiable notability and verifiability/reliable source requirements (or in many cases, any requirements at all), many people got used to it being that way, many people liked it that way, and now there's a lot of anger that an attempt is being made to restore order. Just remember, content that really belongs on Wikipedia can always be recreated when someone has the time and determination to do it well. Nothing's lost forever. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reining in kpop articles / Consistency

I've been chatting with a few editors and we're finding a real need for some consistency and centralization of discussion on best practices for kpop articles. Currently, many articles are extremely lengthy and filled with huge lists. A lot of what I see (and the resistance to changing it) reminds me of how anime articles were in the past (they've improved somewhat). I thought I'd toss out a few of the issues that I've seen raised and see if we can't get some discussion going, and see if some consensus can be reached on how to deal with various issues. Feel free to comment under each sub-section. I'm new so I don't necessarily know if I'm doing this right - be gentle! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards

Where to draw the line?! The lists are enormous, made even more so by the disproportionately huge number of awards given out in Korea.

I believe there is already some consensus for non-inclusion of awards from sites like Allkpop, Soompi. I assume this extends to fan-run, not-really-legit awards like the German Kpop Awards, European Kpop Awards, Blah-blah-blah Fansite Kpop Awards. Thoughts?


How about awards that are possibly "legit" like some of the style awards, but which are/may be (?) non-notable. When I see an award name given, and there is no Wikilink, no information available about who gives the awards or the criteria for judging without scouring the net, I figure it's non-notable. Comments?


Lastly, the weekly music show awards. I know there is supposed to be a real formula for them based on things besides fans' votes, but that is quite in debate (though not debate published in K-media, of course). Some say these awards are integral to the Kpop industry. They are certainly valuable to the artists. I think they are on the level of TRL, myself. Let's discuss. I know this will be contentious, but no matter what I think there has to be a better way of handling this information than long, long lists.


Endorsements

Most articles have long lists of endorsements. Even the most rookie, unsuccessful group gets endorsements in Korea. Unless somehow notable, can't they be worked into the article prose?


Variety Show Appearances

Most articles have lists of every single variety show appearance made by the artist. This is not encyclopedic content, IMO. Again, can't notable appearances be worked into article prose?


Cross-Promotion

Many articles needlessly mention (and Wikilink to) other artists, such as "She is attending college at XYZ University, the same school as Blah-Blah-Member (wikilinked) of Yadda-Yadda-Group (wikilinked). Is this excess information appropriate? Seems to just be a way to promote "the kpop family" or whatever.


Performances

Some articles have long lists of every single performance an artist has ever done, all/most of which are not those artist's concerts (instead they are events where dozens of artists each perform a couple of songs). Can those just be removed or need there be a discussion for each individual situation?


This: List of South Korean idol groups

The level of detail on the associated lists is insane, IMO. Group name (in one language only0, active years, and that's it - that's all that should be there. Non-notable groups should not be listed. I looked at a LOT of similar lists outside of kpop and none contain all that extra data. It's repetitive and fan-oriented and belongs on a fansite. This series of articles epitomizes what I feel is wrong with the kpop articles on Wikipedia. Comments?

I strongly disagree. The article is the most concise collection of k-pop groups so far found. It perfectly chronicles the development of groups through the years. I've searched on many websites and have never found anything as concise as this. To do away with it would be an injustice to the wikipedia community. JMHO. Mikepellerintalk 05:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is: not all these groups are notable enough and there is no source whatsoever (some, but still not enough sources). This is unacceptable on Wikipedia.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me the Wiki page that states what is acceptable and what is not, and provide examples of same that Wikipedia voters have deemed either yay or nay? Mikepellerintalk 06:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source is already a problem by itself.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then your opinion is moot! yes? Mikepellerintalk 06:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a question of notability that we have to address here.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then address it, in World Context. Mikepellerintalk 06:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no point for me to go on with this kind of arguments.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i, TerryAlex, and Mikepellerin: I would have to actually disagree with whether/not the List of South Korean idol groups is too long or not. The thing is, people often look to the list in keeping track at which group debuts/which group didn't. It's not like all the Korean Idol groups will have their own page (ie: A.Kor). The notable groups, yes, are the only groups to have their own Wikipedia Articles. But whether the group is notable or not, I personally think it should be included in that list. The WP:NOTABILITY for groups in my opinion should apply to article creation. The list is fine to me. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tibbydibby and Mikepellerin: What kpop fans may use this list for is irrelevant (and I agree much of the information is probably very useful for some fans) and it is certainly far from concise; the list includes material that is not included on other Wikipedia lists of its kind. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that ever existed; it is not an exhaustive, complete list of anything. There is no list of every idol-group-equivalents that ever existed in (UK, USA, Germany, Japan, Australia, Botswana, Nepal, take your pick), nor will there ever be one. Go look at other lists of this kind and see if any of them list 1) tons of non-notable groups or list 2) each group's name in non-roman scripts/leaders/colors/fanclub name/gender/number of members/debut date/Japanese debut date (WTF)/blah blah. They don't, they shouldn't, and they never will. The 2010s list is also largely unsourced, because most of those groups never got any K-press outside of self-promotional pieces and maybe a tabloid or two, and they never got any independent English press at all. Kpop is no different than any other subject covered on Wikipedia. The intensely exhaustive nature of kpop articles on Wikipedia has got to stop.. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for kpop and should not aim to be the be-all, end-all reference for kpop or any other subject. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. There is a kpop wiki in existence. It would be an excellent place for much of this material. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i, TerryAlex, and Mikepellerin: Well I do agree with this: The list of KPOP groups shouldn't have the following fields: Debut Date, Japan Debut Date (like I don't get why KPOP groups need a Japan Debut), Disband Date, Gender, # of Members, Leaders, Fanclub Name, Fanclub Colors and other Fan-trivial stuff. However, as long as the group is noted to debut (like A.Kor, 4TEN, etc.) in Korean media, having a list with most (if not, all) groups is worth mentioning with the following fields: Group Name (English and Korean Hangul), Agency and Notes (for notability and what the group is known to have done, like EXO being split to EXO-K or EXO-M, or A.Kor having a member write a diss track of Park Bom as it's a notable controversy). Tibbydibby (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You may have a point, @Tibbydibby:. @Random86, TerryAlex, and Drmies: Perhaps there is some value in retaining the other artists on there, so long as they have debuted (no crystal balls, even if there has been publicity about it) and there are sources for it. By that I mean every single group without a Wikipedia article needs to have a source. Most of them will fail notability requirements because they will never have been discussed in reliable media, so we'll have to discuss what constitutes an acceptable source for establishing a group's existence. An agency's own website? A promo piece by a gossip site? Let's discuss, or maybe it will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. It seems many of us agree the excess info needs to go. For groups with articles, it's already on their articles; for groups without articles, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia and can go on a fanwiki. One exception is debut date and disbandment date, as active years are fairly common to note, say "(2004-2008)" or such, not the exact dates, as that is too detailed. I personally don't like the chronological arrangement of the lists, as it's different than all the other lists of its type, which are alphabetical. But that's not a huge deal to me. Thoughts everyone? Feel free to bring in other editors to the discussion, so long as they are willing to contribute and compromise. Also, any ideas how to implement this without causing chaos, say by somehow notifying people (how?!) in advance? Shinyang-i (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh my goodness! Holy moly. Ha, official fan club name and colors too--yes, that's a level of insanity not even anime or rassling can attain. It's quite simple: such list articles are lists of names--bullet point, wikilinked name, and that's it.

    Whether such a list has a value in the first place remains to be seen: after all, those articles are wikilinked out the wazoo already (yes, WP:WALLEDGARDEN), in the articles and via the templates; I've only recently begun noticing how much template porn there is--see the completely useless Template:Bobby (rapper). So the added value of such a list, when we have categories, is debatable, though we have them in all kinds of genres--see List of death metal bands. But, in a nutshell, the lists in this condition are unacceptable. List of death metal bands, !–K is done properly: name and wikilink and, because of the genre warring within metal, a reference that it's actually a valid member of the list. Thanks,

  • One more thing: consensus is that only bands with articles get an entry: no redlinks. If you want to add a band, write the article first. (But that should be easy: xxxx can email you the template and you only have to fill in the blanks.) Drmies (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:, I don't know about that last part...I personally think only wikilinked groups should remain but there is not really a consensus about that, I don't think. I know that all the other similar lists have only wikilinked groups but the opposition will be enormous and I fear it will lead overzealous editors to create even more articles for very marginable groups. Maybe we can get a bit more discussion on that before we delete them? I've been trying to read up on lists and I think some editors could make a point for groups with no articles being justifiably retained...sadly. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that's what the policy was, but I couldn't find anything last time I looked. Thanks Drmies. I personally think a list article is unnecessary since we have Category:South Korean idol groups. --Random86 (talk)
You know, there is policy about that floating around somewhere but I can't ever find it when I need it. Consensus will do, and typically common sense, but there may not be too much of that around. Now, personally I'm not worried about too many articles on non-notables--we have plenty of those already. And if anyone wants to insert redlinks, they can go to the talk page (or this one) and ask for consensus. Personally I would say no to that, but that's also because I typically edit such lists with company names, and the risk of directory-style flooding (with inline URLs) is much greater there. So either way, that's not the biggest deal--as long as we get all this other nonsense out of here. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a list there either. I found I had many questions and grey areas when editing Kpop and I'm glad there's an area to learn, discuss and compromise on some sort of consensus for consistency.

One thing that comes to mind though is for disbanded groups, how long into the future should wiki be tracking the individual members? Since the article exists only because these people were 'famous' for being part of group...do they retain enough individual notability to remain on wiki pages for years after disbandment? For example, all the ex-BabyVox members are more or less still active within the industry after disbandment. However for Click-B, some members have left the industry and others haven't retained enough notability to make much of a splash in the Korean media.

Another thing is how the individual members are treated. What dictates who gets an individual page in addition to being written up on the main group page? Some are quite obvious like Lee Hyori who although she is a former Finkl member, she has established a solid solo persona. But another member Lee Jin hasn't done much asides from appearing in a few variety shows after disbandment.

It's also a grey area as to which groups are included. What defines notability for K-pop groups? A lot of K-pop groups debut and are promoted, come out with one single album...than disappear into obscurity or the member are shuffled around/merged into other new/existing groups. Betsuni (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What Else?

I know I'm forgetting stuff. Please add.


@Shinyang-i: I agree with most of what you wrote.

  • Awards: we have to draw the line to awards that actually hold giving ceremonies and actually give out a trophy or something to the artist. Allkpop, Soompi, XYZ fansite awards should not count as real awards. there are merely popularity votes. (So are MAMA awards, but that's a big televised event...)
  • Performances: I think tours and solo concerts are fine to list. It's data that people frwquently look up (including myself) and also good for statistics purposes for K-culture scholars (there are some pretty renknowned people seriously taking it to academic level). Of course everything has to be sourced approprately.
  • Variety show appearances: major appearances where the artist is main guest should be fine. I personally like looking at where certain people appeared, which episode. Makes it easier to find the show online if someone wants to see their favourites. Cameos should be left out.
  • Agree on cross-promotion, it's not necessary to say XY goes to the same university with ZZ. Unless they are classmates or something, or other relevant information (for example Yoochun owns a restaurant together with Jaejoong. Since they are celebrity co-owners, it cannot be left out)
  • List of K-pop groups: this is the part I don't agree on. Yes, info like who the leader is, and writing small bios in the comment field, and what color the fanclub is is irrelevant information. BUT regarding the bands, I think it is OK to list all K-pop bands who debuted. These are usually covered in Korean media, so it could be possible to write an article about them with at least two independent, unaffiliated sources, if one wanted to do so. (Lack of English sources should not be a notability criteria. Not having English sources doesn't mean the suject itself is not notable in Korea. Please note that notability means having independent sources cover the subject in a nontrivial manner, not that the subject "is famous" or "widely known".) Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Teemeah: Thanks for your reply. I hope others chime in too!
  • Regarding awards, HOW do we draw the line. I already know Soompi and that kind of stuff should not be listed. It's all the other gray area stuff that gets listed that I want to know about. Having the same argument over and over again on multiple pages is not productive. If there is no Wikilink to an award listed, then I don't know what it is. If I have to search online to see if it's legit then either 1) it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and should have one, or 2) it's not notable, shouldn't have a Wikipedia article, and shouldn't be mentioned. We need some standards because fans will include every single conceivable thing otherwise. Every website and organization out there is trying to make an 'awards' event to drive traffic to their site; every one of them does not need to receive attention from an encyclopedia. Let's hash out the acceptable and non-acceptable ones more specifically.
  • You misunderstood what I meant by performances. I'm not talking about an artist's own concerts or tours, I'm talking about lists of every single thing they ever performed at; events that are not their own concerts but at which they perform along with a dozen other groups.
  • Variety shows - I still think the lists are out of control, even if cameos are removed. Just because people enjoy the information doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. That's what fanwikis are for. But again, let's talk it out more and see if we can't find a way to draw a reasonable line that can be referenced by all (willing) editors without tons of subjectivity. (I can't imagine listing every show on which an artist from any other genre appeared would be allowed; only kpop...)
  • Lists of kpop groups - First, there are two issues here. One is the abundance of information on these lists, far far beyond that which is included on other "list of musical artist" type lists. We need to discuss what to do with all the extra stuff. Second, I lived in Korea for years; most of these groups are totally unknown there. But that anecdotal, non-citable evidence aside, under no circumstances would every group that ever existed in any other genre of music be allowed to be have articles on Wikipedia. Why is kpop being treated differently? Of course they all technically pass Wikipedia's notability standards; the K-media is incredibly zealous and eager to promote kpop as much as possible. Some newbie that hasn't even debuted so much as sneezes and a dozen articles are written about it. We can't let that override common sense. Additionally, this isn't Korean Wikipedia. Just because something might be famous somewhere doesn't mean it belongs on English Wikipedia if it has no notability in English. I'm sure someone out there likes having that info around, but Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of every piece of info in existence. There is a kpop wiki out there, ripe for editing.
Thanks again. I appreciate your viewpoints & I hope some more people give theirs, as well. Shinyang-i (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Teemeah: regarding Awards

  • Performances: only solo tours and concerts can be listed, not every single performance appearances in award shows, various artists' concerts (except with their own agency).
  • Still not exactly sure where you stand on "Television Appearances", but for me, only major appearance (ie. main cast) should be listed, every other guest appearances should not. Kpop artists appear in those shows some hundred times a year. Just because it is easier to look up certain episodes cannot justify the reason for them to be listed on Wikipedia. That is what fanpage can do. Wikipedia is not a place for "every trivial list".
  • List of Endorsement has to be taken out. If we want to demonstrate someone's popularity, we can say something like "They have done many endorsements throughout the years, and this shows their popularity..." and reference some of those endorsements; or "Group A ranked number one in 2010 as the top endorser", "they were voted to be most influential..." etc., but what is the point of listing out every single endorsement deal in someone's career? Wikipedia is not a place for this either.Don't tell me it's a part of K-pop culture. I'm sure Western celebrities get tons of endorsement deals as well, but they don't get listed on here.
  • I didn't know about the "List of Kpop group" before, but now that I briefly looked at it, some of those info definitely has to be taken out. I agree with @Shinyang-i: regarding this.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually for "awards", is it a must that we list out every single music show wins? I don't mind we say something like this "Group ABC wins a total of 5 wins for the song "ABC". Throughout their career, they have won a total of 70 wins...", but having a table dedicated to music show awards is unnecessary. And most of these "lists" we are discussing about have no references at all whatsoever.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For "Awards", I'm thinking about having the "Nominations" taken out, what do you think? If they don't win it, what makes it so notable? It's hard to draw the line, hopefully we can come up with something.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


My thoughts:
  • Awards
    • Fan-run awards don't need to be here.
    • Awards like the Style Icon Awards are real awards. Just because they don't have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean they aren't notable. Maybe someone just hasn't created a page yet. It's really not hard to do a Google search and determine if an award if fan-run or not. (I'm not saying all real awards are notable, but don't assume they aren't.)
    • Music shows awards are not solely based on fan voting and winning them is a big deal even though they are given out every week. There might be a better way to present them, but I don't think they should be taken out. I will try to think of a solution for this.
    • Award nominations for notable awards should not be taken out. For example, it is still notable to be nominated for a Grammy Award even if you don't win it.
  • Endorsements
I agree with Shinyang-i and TerryAlex on this.
  • Variety show appearances
Notable guest appearances can probably be worked into prose, although most probably aren't notable. Even though tables of every TV show appearance may be valuable to fans, is it really encyclopedic content? I predict there will be a lot of opposition to removing these tables, so more editors need to discuss it.
  • Performances
The only acceptable lists of performances is solo concerts/tours, and concerts/tours like SM Town. Lists of normal performances at festivals etc is not encyclopedic, and can be removed without discussion. Other performances that are notable can be worked into the body of the article.
  • Reliable sources
This is a major concern with K-pop articles on Wikipedia. Too much of the time, either information is not sourced or it is poorly sourced. There are articles where the only source is Allkpop. Here is the disclaimer from Allkpop's website:

allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims.

WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources is a good resource, although it could be expanded.

--Random86 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Random86 Regarding Variety show, yes, for a few of those "only-1-episode guest appearances", let's say Singer A wins that game show (during that episode), it can be worked into prose. Same with the "Main Cast" ones, we can briefly introduce what the show is about and talk about Singer A's role in that show, but listing out every single appearances is unnecessary and un-encyclopedic.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, y'all--TerryAlex, Random86, Shinyang-i, is that really what it says for Allkpop? That's worse than I thought. I've not looked over this entire page yet, but here's what I suggest: a separate section, or even a subpage, where the usual sourcing is laid out, so we can draw up a list of unreliable sources and a list of reliable ones. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:, check out the section below, "Clarification on Korean sources". :) Shinyang-i (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Drmies: Yes, Allkpop admits they are a gossip site. We have WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, although it needs to be updated. For example, I don't think Korea.com is reliable since they repost things from Allkpop. --Random86 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Occupations

This is another issue that needs to be addressed. To quote TerryAlex: "'Person A is a singer, actor, dancer, rapper, leader, main vocalist, main dancer, MC, communications director, promotional model, businessperson, fashion designer, CEO, producer, choreographer, executive producer.' After I read this, I don't even know what a heck Person A really is." Only notable occupations are supposed to be included. --Random86 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Most Kpop artists should only be referred to as singer & actor. Anything else (MC, radio DJ, etc) can be elaborated within the article as a part of their career. They are definitely not dancers (they are not backup dancers, do we want to refer to our favorite Kpop artists as such?)--TerryAlex (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed. And they should only be called actors if they've actually acted in a real movie or TV show. Variety TV, music videos, or being in a TV commercial don't count, IMO, because they were hired for those in their roles as singers. Yes, even if they appeared in a company-mate's MV prior to their own debut. Ditto for "models." Shinyang-i (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with everything Teemeah on what she listed. The only thing is though, if "X" Group or "Y" Artist simply appeared and/or performed on yearly award shows (ie: MAMA) and/or weekly shows (ie: Inkigayo and M! Countdown), that information should be on the appropriate show's page (if notable), not the artist's page. That's my only other suggestion. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you impose that sanction, then you will have to impose it wiki-wide. You can't just single out k-pop articles. I suggest you look at: Justin Timberlake, Bette Midler, Seo Taiji just to name a few. It's common practise whether it is liked or not. Mikepellerintalk 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, @Mikepellerin:, it's an issue across Wikipedia. But it's not a sanction; it's trying to keep articles in line with Wikipedia policy. But yeah, it needs to be addressed all over and frequently is. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames

I also need to bring this up. Nicknames are a serious issue. I went through B.A.P Members' pages and there was a monstrous amount of fan-related nicknames I had to get rid of. I can tolerate other official names (ie: Daehyun's Chinese name) but I can't tolerate stuff like "maknae" on (ie: Zelo)'s page. Should we just stick to official names for "Nicknames"/"Also Known as" part of the table? Thanks. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is another serious issue. Here's a quote from Template:Infobox musical artist:

For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name in the |name= parameter. Also for the solo artist's legal name(s), or other officially authorized names that differ from their birth name. This field is not for nicknames such as "The Godfather of Soul" (James Brown) or "Nippy" (Whitney Houston), which are not the artists' official names.

--Random86 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Tibbydibby:! They should be names that have been used professionally, like they recorded or were credited under. Like Tablo has been credited as 'Supreme-T', Lee Minwoo releases solo material as 'M', Yoon Mirae has used a variety of names (T, Tasha, etc) in the past, stuff like that. Even nicknames the artist calls themselves for fun (like Shinhwa's Eric calling himself 'Yukric' and 'Actor Mun') don't belong. I'm sure there will be a few gray-area ones that can be researched or (IMO) just left alone, but most are clear deletes. Glad someone else is patrolling for this, too! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Associated acts

This is another big problem. Again, see Template:Infobox musical artist for what is acceptable here. I'm not knowledgeable on every K-pop group, but I suspect many of the associated acts are not really associated acts and need to be removed --Random86 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the same. I'd like to know the standard for 'associated acts'. I think I remember once upon a time reading that it doesn't include every artist the subject has ever done a duet with, but I can't remember where I saw that. Help? Shinyang-i (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Shinyang-i, I linked to it above, but here's what it says:

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

  • For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
  • Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
  • Groups which have spun off from this group
  • A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

  • Association of groups with members' solo careers
  • Groups with only one member in common
  • Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
  • One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
  • Groups that are merely similar

--Random86 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Just because an idol singer happens to sing a trot song in his career, does not make him become a trot singer. Same with guitarists, pianists, etc.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Music genre

This is the definition of K-pop from Wikipedia: Although it comprises all genres of "popular music" within South Korea, the term is more often used in a narrower sense to describe a modern form of South Korean pop music covering: dance-pop, pop ballad, electronic, rock, metal,[2] hip-hop music and R&B. So why must we list out a whole bunch of other genres besides K-pop? K-pop by itself is already sufficient.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist has a guideline for this as well: "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]]) and preferably use 2-4." Since K-pop is a broad genre, I can understand adding a few other genres, but they should be reliably sourced. For example, the music styles of Block B and Akdong Musician are very different from each other even though they are both K-pop. --Random86 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If there is some justification to it, that would be fine. But most of the time, I'm seeing this: K-pop, dance-pop, ballad, hip-hop, R&B. You get the picture.:)--TerryAlex (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Videography/ filmography

Through increased discussion in afd debates about how poor the standards for separate videography/ filmographies are laid out and how this confuses people users, I have come to question the way I felt about them. While I myself created a videography and tried hard to make it, I am aware some of the items included are questionable...because I myself questioned them in the talk page giving my reasoning for keeping them in and asking for other opinions I have yet to receive. Anyways, here's my point, I think it would be better if we made a rule that no K-pop group should have those pages. Music video's would be placed in the discographies and filmography information would be moved to the main page. It would make it easier to spot when fans are adding things they shouldn't and be an easier standard to enforce. I read somewhere that it is okay for certain categories of Wikipedia pages to create different standards as needed and I think we might need this one. I have yet to come across a page including the one I created where I can definitively say the group needed a separate page. It has always been an organizational style choice choosing to declaratively choose one style would make life easier for us all.Peachywink (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving conversations!

Ah! How quickly you archive conversations so readers won't see all the negative comments posted here! Users: You want to see all the crap? Contact me on my talk page...I'll make it available! Mikepellerintalk 04:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Oh! And I checked, I'm not breaking any rules! Mikepellerintalk 04:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Inactive discussions are automatically archived by a bot, and links to the archives are already on this page. This happens regularly on most talk pages, not just here. It has nothing to do with hiding negative comments. Random86 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who set the archivebot, and my initial (and current) bot setup is to archive threads older than 90 days (3 months). If you think 3 months are "quick", fine. (Whenever you make new comment, 90 days counter resets. So, if you comment on 89 days old comment, it will stay there for 90 days after your comment.) — regards, Revi 06:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
And those users could, of course, just click on the "Archives" links on the top of the page. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Needed on a Deletion Discussion

I nominated this Big Bang article MADE 2015 World Tour about their current tour for deletion but it hasn't been getting that many comments and was relisted for further discussion. Since I would like to reach consensus I hope some people might go look at it and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADE 2015 World Tour. Even if you disagree with me I would appreciate getting more editors comments on whether to keep or remove the article. thank you! Peachywink (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Added reply. Mikepellerintalk 03:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oh Sehun

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oh Sehun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S- Editors, I had to do Sehun's page this way instead. The main reason being is that we've discussed this, MANY MANY TIMES BEFORE, and it seems that almost all editors agree with the deletion. Plus, if you look at Sehun's page, it contains information that I could have just simply added to the main Exo article. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This might need to be AfD'ed since it wasn't really eligible for speedy deletion. I couldn't find a previous AfD; has there ever been one? Random86 (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have heard it was discussed before when people have been bringing back EXO members' pages, like Sehun's for example. Like, at least several times. People keep bringing those EXO pages back on Wikipedia and I'm sick of it. It may not have been a direct AfD but there was merge discussions towards EXO members (like there in the archives for example) as of recent. I really wish that people realize that unless EXO members establish independent notability outside of EXO, they don't get their own article. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the recent edits and restored the redirect. There was consensus to merge, and he doesn't seem to have become more notable since September. Random86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Random86: Thank you so much! I appreciate it! :D Tibbydibby (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Nam Taehyun deltion disscussion

Sorry to bug people here with this again but AFD discussions can sometimes get overlooked, like this one has been. The discussion has been relisted twice now and may end up in no decision. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (Winner) I hope I can get some of your opinions. Peachywink (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Taeyang (of BIGBANG)

Hey guys, since I found out now that there are multiple uses of Taeyang, I am proposing a move for Taeyang to be distinguished as a singer and for the disambiguation page to be renamed just simply to Taeyang. The move request is found at its talk page (the last discussion). Thanks! Tibbydibby (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

F(x)'s Krystal

After much thought, I'm going to propose a move of Krystal (singer) to Krystal Jung (Please refer to this discussion for any discussion of moving the page. Thanks again! Tibbydibby (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Tistory images explained

Hello,

There has been old, long, never-ending dispute regarding tistory-uploaded images' copyright status. I have explained as much as I can on c:User:-revi/Tistory. So, if some commons admin deletes some valid tistory.com images for copyvio, point to the page. Since I know there are lots of tistory.com uploaders watching this pages, I'm just writing here. Should you have any questions, don't hestitate to ask me on my commons talk page. — regards, Revi 04:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: Thanks! Do you think it would be useful to create a category Images from Tistory and briefly point to your explanation on top of the category page? Much like I did with c:Category:Images from LGEPR. We had the same issue with commons admins, not believing that LG released its images under CC. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, fine, but there should be one cat per blog (*.tistory.com or custom domain) and all cats should be categorized into one metacat. So structure should be like this;
(Category: Part intentionally omitted)
Image sources of South Korea (or something, I'm phone right now)
ㄴ Images from tistory
  ㄴ Images from wasabcon (similar cat exists, as I remember creating it...)
  ㄴ Images from toto1024.tistory.com
  ㄴ Images from ***.tistory.com
— regards, Revi 05:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Any opinion? If nobody opposes, I'm going to do the tedious cat work.... If someone can give me a list of tistory blogs on Commons, it would be even better. — regards, Revi 09:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

People here: I created a meta cat c:Category:Images from Tistory but I want to have a consistency for the subcat name... See c:Category talk:Images from Tistory for details. — regards, Revi 10:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Tistory blogs

Hello, (I didn't want to revive #Tistory images explained thread...)

I started creating categories for tistory blog files, but I lack the information about the blogs. If you can leave a domain (domain is sufficient, I will do the rest (getting list of files, creating cat and inserting, cleanup, etc). Best place would be my talk page on Commons but I will monitor this page too.

Thanks for your help, as always! — regards, Revi 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tablo

Can any of you folks help settle a recurring dispute at the article Tablo? The article says, supported by sources, that Tablo was born in Seoul. But there are frequent attempts to change it to say he was born in Jakarta. Consensus has been Seoul, and the people who try to change it are usually new or anonymous users, but that doesn't prove they are wrong. A problem is that Tablo has in the past been the subject of widespread misinformation on the internet (especially the internet campaign in 2010 to deny that he graduated from Stanford). Another problem is that the sources cited are in Korean. Can any Korean speakers help us to sort this out - and point to definitive sources that we can use from now on? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For starters, try requesting page protection for Tablo and then maybe ask other editors about what else to do. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What do I do with this iKON page?

As I was moving the references on iKON's page into columns I noticed at the top someone had put this: main article >> iKON activity I'm not really sure what to make of this page as I have never seen an "activity" page before for any artist. Whatever it is it clearly doesn't go in the references but I don't know where else it goes since it seems to span multiple categories of information. I might submit it for deletion or merge. I'm not sure yet as I need to take a closer look. Anyone else care to give feedback on what to do with it? Or have you seen this sort of page somewhere else? Peachywink (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Members sections

Overview: I think it is about time there was official agreed upon consensus on how a K-pop group's member section should be written

Recently K-pop group member sections have been full of trivia/marketing campaign info, usually surrounding what the members of a group represent, here are some examples:

(the same can be seen on J-pop group articles)

This can all be regarding as un-needed trivia and essentially fancruft which does not necessarily have anything to do with the music.

I use the term group because it does not have any connotations behind it unlike band which implies the playing of instruments. I understand that terms like boy band and girl group are used essentially because of the alliteration more than anything else, so this should be ignored.

My opinion: To convey my view I will compare how I use K-pop and Korean Rock articles differently. Personally when I go to a K-pop group's article (eg. BTS (band) or Twice (band)), I am either looking at the members section or the discography. When I look in the members section I am usually looking for birth/real names and DoB — positions like main vocal/lead vocal/sub vocal/lead rapper/main rapper (possibly also leader) etc. are not something I am interested in because these are just positions given by the group's company to put a label on them, and what weight do they really have? When I go to a Korean Rock band's article (eg. F.T. Island or Nell (band)), similar to the former, I am looking at the members section or the discography, but in the members section I look to see what instrument they play, not personal information.

To conclude: I think that member sections of groups and bands should be seperated into two different categories in which bands should prioritise position, whereas groups should be a little more informative of the individal (eg. stage name-birth name-DoB etc.) noting that if all members of a group have their own individual articles a group member section should not be required at all. Of course this is just my view on the situation and I would appreciate input and opinions from other editors who frequent on current Korean band and group articles. Abdotorg (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Members" section should only exist if the information is too long for the infobox. I agree that information about members who have their own articles should not be duplicated on the article about the band or the group. Monni (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said here, Abdotorg. ~Solstice Prince 16:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to include a role of a member in a band, they all play an instrument because it is part of their job and it is also common on Wikipedia however for idol groups I disagree about including anything beyond the stage name + some major activities. Birth names etc. need to be precisely sourced and most available Korean sources don't fulfill the long list of requirements demanded by Wikipedia. Naver is most likely not reliable enough either, they get their informations from the labels, which is fine as long as it involves the correct capitalization of their stage names. Wikipedia also has specific guidelines about using primary sources but most groups can't provide anything except self-published sources by the company. Also in some cases the own company of the idols doesn't publish or use anything beyond the stage names. There actually might be rules about it and I think it would be the best to invite some admins to the discussion + there are some active K-pop editors, who improved some articles to good quality. I'm still new and I don't know enough about the guidelines of Wikipedia yet but the groups page is about the group and its music and I think we should focus mostly on it. The "Members" sections shouldn't fill out half of the page.--Thebestwinter (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In most cases about the length of the "Members" section, the debate is whether it is trivial or significant information. If part for one member grows too big, it either needs to be moved to article about that member, integrated in other sections, or discarded. What is already mentioned (or can be integrated) elsewhere in the article should not be repeated in the "Members" section if it makes the section grow too big. Monni (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that sources are extremely important and are absolutely the most needed thing when creating a members section to avoid it being full of trivia and un-needed extras, and in the case where there are no reliable refs I agree that it should be nothing but stage names. Regarding Naver; it is a very reliable source and a popular news portal in which I trust. I agree that members sections are getting out of hand (see Twice (band) and Got7). On the topic of artists' official websites: I personally think that they should be considered sources specifically for member sections (and nothing else as it is not for WP) as the people in question are essentially an employee of said company. Abdotorg (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Naver is indeed popular and it is also the biggest news portal in South Korea however it does not state anywhere where they actually get their informations from but it's most likely provided by the companies itself and as far as I know we are supposed to avoid self-published sources. I also don't think we can trust the information released by the music label, it is not uncommon for artist to use fake names and some even cheat their age, which is unlikely for male Korean idols however it is possible. Plus I have never seen any good or featured Wikipedia article to use the website of the artist as source for stuff like this. It is ok for the stage name because it is actually a name created by the label itself but I don't think we should use it for something important as date of birth or their birth names.--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree - Idol groups aren't bands, they don't have positions the way a musical band does. Yes they may have members that are better dancers, better vocalists, etc. but it is usually the fans that get pedantic on "lead vocal" vs "main vocal" and other such nonsense that no one can agree to. There is no encyclopedic reason to keep them. Fluff marketing "concepts" such as animals or colors should also be removed. They rarely survive past the debut of the group and are much more of promotion cycle than anything else. Evaders99 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with the idea removing of the members' roles in the group, and would actually suggest doing the exact opposite of what you propose. The article is about the group, and the positions of each member is vital to how the group operates. This is distinct to K-pop. Primary sources are generally discouraged, but not forbidden, and these sources are actually the best to go to when it comes to member positions. Birth names and dates are not relevant to the article of the group, and should be left to the individual entertainer's page if one exists. Member sections should only contain the name of the member and their positions, and that's it. If extraneous details can not properly be added into the article's body, then it likely doesn't belong in the article to begin with. ℯxplicit 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Explicit, only stage names and positions are notable (and by position, I mean only things like "vocals", "main vocal", "sub vocal", "rapper" etc., and not "maknae", "visual", "face", or "purple girl represented by deer", even if this is sourced). If there is no specific positions or sources, we dont need to include "vocals" for each member, but simply leave it without it. Full birth names, birth dates, location of birth etc. are not needed. All this detail can be included in their own articles, when they will have one. If they never reach the notability to have an own article, well, thats too bad then. I think there were some discussions about WP:BLP that full names should actually be avoided if not directly related and important to the subject (the group in this case), but I cant find the discussion now. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Unsurprisingly, I now entirely agree with Explicit and Snowflake91 - members sections should be completely stripped of additional birth names, DoB's (and also in my opinion: solo tv casting/acting ventures/past activities) etc. and whatever information not necessarily relevant to the band itself. Individual members can have these details included in their own articles when they become notable enough to require one. I also agree that positions need to be sourced or they essentially become fan observations.
Visual example

What I have previously implemented:
* name (이름), born this name (이름이) on  (1999-01-09) January 9, 1999 (age 25) — vocalist


What I will now implement:
* name (이름) — vocalist
  • I disagree with the idea that real names and DoB are irrelevant. Looking at the pages now, they seem far too bare. While I agree that they can get out of hand, simple info such as real name and DoB are useful and don’t cause clusters on the pages

(user:ShinJunBak))

I definitely understand the arguments against including things such as positions and solo projects, but I feel very strongly about including the members' birth dates. Ever since the birth dates have been removed from practically all the pages, I find myself having to scroll through other websites to get a sense of people's ages when I usually would have just gone to Wikipedia for that. This means that fans who are just discovering a group for the first time and want to quickly know who the oldest and the youngest members are will immediately exit out of Wikipedia once they realize that they cannot get such quick and easy information here. It's unfortunate because most other websites that one can turn to are cluttered and require a bit of scrolling to read everything, while on Wikipedia we can include birth dates and everything would still be condensed in an easy-to-read list. Some have said that birth dates are not relevant to the group's activities, but I would argue that they are, especially in Korean culture where they play a part in establishing people's roles in a group. Yes, members can have this information written on their own page, but let's be real - the amount of idols who are notable enough to have their own page are not a lot compared to those from the many smaller groups who are only listed in their band's page. If anything, if we include at least birth dates, it would help people get a sense of the members from smaller groups since they're not well-known and just having a list of names isn't actually meaningful at all. Overbyen (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well those fans will have to go to Kpop Wikia then, Wikipedia is not meant for fans, listing their fullnames and birthdates is simply fancruft. If someone who doesnt care about K-pop at all came to this page and would still like some info about the BAND, he/she would not care less what are the members real names in hangul or at which day were they born, but they would care about "History", "Artistry", "Legacy/public image" and "Discography" sections. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Members represent of course that's not relieble to insert it and about length information members maybe we need to made their own page if they have many activities. But, Can we adding REAL NAME and DOB in their members section beside name stage (hangul if avail) and position? For big group, members who have their page, or group have many activities no problem to not include it. The problem comes for new group or small group or group with little activities. I think we can adding real name and DOB like before. And for "LEADER", is it include on position too? because i'm little doubt to include them and it's like "MAKNAE" and "VISUAL" position for me. If LEADER include i'm insert it too in their members section. I'm seeing the fifthy harmony's page, and they have members sections, they include DoB since they have same similiarity with K-pop group. Fenny novita (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is arguable to include the position "leader" because it is actually just trivial information but also part of K-pop culture, some notable award shows even give out awards for "Best Leader" etc. as long as there is an reliable source I would say it's alright but "maknae" literally means the youngest, which is obviously not notable to be included. Also Fifthy Harmony seems to have its own problems, it's better to use a good article as an example. Otherwise I agree with Snowflake91. We are already making an exception for K-pop groups to include positions because it's usually only for bands as far as I can tell. Everything else would count as fancruft.--Thebestwinter (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree: These articles deliver the information and history of the group. I really don't see any need to remove them anyway.-K-popguardian (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Having dealt with 4minute's page for many years, I would suggest only having member sections if they are sourced properly, but they are more trouble than they are worth. If each member has a strongly-associated theme color as with The Wiggles (FA-class article, see The Wiggles#Band members) or a theme nickname like Spice Girls (B-class article, see lead paragraph), then yes, you can include that as people will identify the brand's members as such. For barbershop quartets (maybe not so much in Kpop but you never know), it makes sense to assign each of the four members to their vocal range. Regarding DOBs, if it's a large girl group that makes it a big deal to list DOBs, as with List of AKB48 members, then that information can be put in. But if the group disbands or a member leaves, then the DOB isn't needed anymore. If it's the only place where members appear in Wikipedia with their biographies for individual members, like Meg and Dia#Members, then DOBs can be used. But if they have their individual articles, the DOBs and real names can go there and not on the band article. I would strongly avoid original research / fan research on members positions. "Visual", "Maknae", "Artistic", "Dancer", "Sub vocalist", "Sub leader", "Center" are strongly contentious and are usually assigned by fans instead of by a group's official site. Maknae just means youngest, so people can figure that out easily without the band article telling people who is the youngest. Compare Destiny's Child which just lists a timeline for their Members section, even though many argue that Beyonce was the de facto leader or center. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll add that Hi-5 (Australian band) has a regular rotation of young stars and a timeline for its members section, and there the members are simply listed with their year ranges. A lot of effort was made by the editors to get the article to GA-class and to clean up its member history of people joining and leaving the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • After reading all comments, I agree to the removal of all trivia, along with the birth name (companies usually just put stage name in the band/group's website). However, I disagree to the removal of DOB because it can help as the members' identity ONLY for those who don't have individual articles (see: Bump.y#Members). There can be a member with the same name as other group's member (e.g. Minhyuk, Minho, etc). Though of course, we can only add DOB if it's available in the company's/group's website. For "positions", I don't think "main vocalist", "sub-vocalist", "rapper", "main rapper", "lead rapper" are relevant because: (1) the companies do not usually "assign" these positions and most are just fans' opinion, and (2) it doesn't matter if they are vocalists or rappers because all of them are "singing". So I think no need to add positions. Accireioj (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

-I’m pretty neutral as whether member sections should be included or not, however, if the only information provided is their name then there isn’t really much point in the section being there at all. Members past and present are listed in the information box, so it seems pretty pointless for a whole section to exist if only their stage name is included. Alexanderlee (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree to this. If it only contains stage names, then better just completely remove the Member section. But then again, I disagree to the removal of it, especially for the smaller groups (those who don't have individual articles for the members) because the members are the most "relevant" in the groups/bands. Accireioj (talk) 5:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Member section didn't need to remove since that's important information too. We just need their name, positions and DoB i think it needed to add too since many idols had same name. But, if we just including their name without position and DoB, i think just delete it since for infobox already adding and first paragraph intro "this group contain of seven members by blablablabla". We must think for small groups, please~ They need many information for all readers or searcher who wanna know more about them. Fenny novita (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I was informed of this discussion from a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. If the content can be reliably sourced, there's no reason to remove a members section. If there are none, they should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture/Archive_3&oldid=1136050537"