Talk:List of South Korean girl groups

Generational divide is questionable

Wanted to address the odd divide between first, second, third and fourth 'generations' in this article - while this terminology should, IMO, be included (as it's commonly used when talking about the subject), I don't think yours is done clearly enough to be worth the addition. It also hinges on the popularity of K-pop in the West, which seems regressive and might wane at any time anyway.

I've previously only seen fans mark the generations in terms of the Big 3 companies (JYPE, SM, YG) and their rounds of girl group debuts, which is at least consistent and correlates with larger industry trends. Using this system, the generations would be divided as follows:

• 1st generation: everything until the debut of Wonder Girls (2007)
• 2nd generation: Wonder Girls (2007) until Red Velvet (2014)
• 3rd generation: Red Velvet (2014) until Itzy (2019)
• 4th generation: Itzy (2019) to present
• 5th generation: will only begin once Itzy, aespa and YG's next girl group have all been established in the industry, and when one of these companies decides to debut a new group.

This would mean G-IDLE, Loona etc. actually belong to the 3rd generation, as do many on the 4th gen list. Only 18 groups currently fit the Wiki notability guidelines and belong to the 4th gen: the most successful so far are Itzy, Aespa, Weeekly and STAYC.

Untitled

Are you still working on your draft? Looking forward to reading it!

Peer Review - Xe I like the direction you're going with this topic, branching with different concepts, publicity, and even controversies. Here are a few questions/suggestions I have for you:

As for the profiles of the girl groups, what is your criteria for including certain groups? Additionally, it would be interesting if you include what distinguishes the generations from each other

Under the "Award" section, it would be great to have a list of "top hits" and "album sales."

Don't forget to add citations!

There are some sentences that can be expand, for example:

"all-female idol groups who account for a large portion of the K-pop industry" --> list revenues generated from girl groups; ratio of boy to girl groups, etc.

What made the first generation girl groups successful?

"gender bias does still uniquely affect these groups and their members in a variety of avenues." I hope you can explain the implications gender bias creates.

Those are all the suggestions I have for you! Can't wait to see where you take this article!! Xchang20 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability

How is this article notable? Why is it different from List of South Korean idol groups - we barely allow a list of K-pop idols and we don't need a entire table of random trivia. Concepts are ever vast and subjective. Then we get a list of K-pop boy bands and we go off the wall... Evaders99 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What are the criteria for groups in the table vs in the list?

I have moved Aespa to the list rather than the table, considering they have yet to have a music show win, or a true "break-through" when compared to other groups in the list section of the 3rd generation (CLC, Pristin, etc.) They also have no award wins yet, so it feels a bit silly to put them in this category already. Once they inevitably get more awards, I would agree that it makes sense, but being from a large company does not automatically enshrine you as a "Best Selling Group," as the table label reads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestepford (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have the same question, because I think that LOONA should not be in the list, because if compared to gidle they are both top notch, LOONA got their first win, they have lots of achievements, breakthroughs and awards. I think they are notable enough to be on the table. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Loona doesn't have a hit single. Anyway, I don't exactly agree with dividing groups between the more successful and less successful. This should be fix in the future.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Generation problem

I found that there is no such criteria to divide generation of South Korean girl groups. So, I think we should edit those generation-thing. -- Wendylove (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Generation 5

Babymonster are considered as 5th Generation as 5th Generation had already begun in 2023 according to many reliable KPOP source and media. Aside from Baby Monster, Young Posse are also among those can be considered as 5th Generation KPOP. -- User: Dayville999 ([[User talk:]]) 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Where are these references? Also BabyMonster and Vcha don't have any hits and platinum-certified albums yet, for its members to be listed in the article one by one.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay someone just added another Generation 5 section in this article. Can we get a consensus about this? Hotwiki (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dayville999 and @Hotwiki: these references could help to distinguish if 5th Generation really began or not:

• www.hankyung.com/article/2024040370567
• koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/07/11/entertainment/kpop/Kpop-generation-ZeroBaseOne/20230711143453411.html
• www.spieltimes.com/news/when-will-k-pops-5th-generation-start-sm-entertainment-to-debut-a-new-gen-boy-group/
• www.nylon.com/entertainment/k-pops-fifth-generation-is-here-what-does-that-mean 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 14:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we're ready to move to Gen 5, especially considering Illit's debut has been certified platinum. Orangesclub (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not just about group's getting a certified platinum on an album but should have distinction of how a generation is different to another. And I don't see any difference(s) yet as oppose to what Korean media outlets wants to portray. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I just wanted to add the point seeing as it was mentioned above. I personally think we have moved into a new generation - it doesn't really feel right to me to group Illit/Baby Monster in with G Idle and Ateez, but I don't think there'll ever be a concrete answer.

Would it be better to break down the article by years then? Remove the ambiguity completely? Orangesclub (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I also have same perspective but Wikipedia has its guidelines and policies that should abide. And the only thing that comes to mind is to open a discussion for this matter. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep the article as it is, for now. Years from now, there would be a better understanding if the newer groups are part of the generation V. As for splitting them in years. Imo, that could just cause some issues, as you'd be splitting the article to a dozens of sections. Hotwiki (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Listing down the members

Is listing down the members of the more successful girl groups really important to this article? Not every girl group member listed in this article has their own Wikipedia article. We can also just check the Wikipedia article of the girl groups for those links. I don't see it necessary, compare to enumerating the successful singles/best selling album to prove why certain girl groups are the best selling of their generation. Also certain sub-units of less popular girl groups (like Loona) aren't also mentioned in this article, only the more successful girl groups get to have their sub-unit/s listed in the article. I think members/sub-units should be removed from the table. Hotwiki (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, its been several hours since I brought this up in this talk page. I am removing members and sub-units from the table now per my reasonings. I hope no one has a problem with it. Hotwiki (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Question on the inclusion of Bobbalgan4 and Davichi

I noticed that in the article mentioning this is a list of female idol groups, wouldn't that discount the likes of groups like Bobbalgan4 and Davichi? Since they aren't really idols but strictly artists. Sorry if this is brought up again just wondering. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

They are/were duos. Hotwiki (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes but they don't really have the same target demographics as the other groups listed here? I find it conflicting that the article mention about idols but then list otherwise. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who is their target demographic, this is just a list of girl groups. Duos are considered groups. Hotwiki (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Then should this sentence be changed? "South Korean girl groups refer to the all-female idol groups who are part of the K-pop industry". Hooplasledge23 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No need to change. This is a list of girl groups which has plenty of the groups associated with K-pop. Hotwiki (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for clearing this up. It makes sense now when you put it that way. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding 5th Generation

Some argue that 5th Generation has started, but plenty more think that 5th Generation arrive in 2023: thus, groups like EL7Z UP, ILLIT, BABYMONSTER, YOUNG POSSE, KISS OF LIFE, etc. would all qualify as 5th Generation girl groups. If you would like some references/proof: 1, 2, and 3. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources are all unreliable: first source is originated from comingsoon.net website of which is the same as how we don't use sources from Forbes per WP:FORBES then the second is a blog which is not reliable per WP:BLOGS while the third one, see WP:KO/RS#UR. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. I did a bit more of digging around and found this NME article about ZB1, stating that they are the start of 5th Generation K-pop. Considering ZB1 debuted in the summer 2023, I think it's safe to assume that groups that debuted in the summer of 2023 and after them can be considered 5th Gen. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I will have to disagree on that. Like I've already said, this should be given more time to process. Certain websites seemed to jump on the "generation five" label for whatever reason and there seems to be a debate in other websites, about when does generation five actually starts or if if gen five already started. Hotwiki (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Year active

@Hotwiki why put an end year to some active groups? Is there a consensus about this? (Most likely none.) Just because they haven't done any activity? I don't get the logic because If I'm a reader who knows a thing about K-pop groups and stumble upon this list, I will think the information giving here is wrong as their main page and this list is contradicting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 01:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Because they haven't done anything in 2024, thats a simple explanation. Can you give a group activity that Mamamoo and Blackpink did in 2024, to say that they are an active group in 2024? I already looked it up. Mamamoo's last group activity was back in August 2023, it was during a concert gig.[1] Blackpink was last seen as a group when they met King Charles III of United Kingdom in November 2023.[2] Not even a small greeting video uploaded on their social media accounts in this year, to warrant being labeled as an active group in the present year. It is the same thing with other girl groups like Girls' Generation who haven't officially disbanded yet. Hotwiki (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I too was just visiting the page and found myself idly wondering “why are Blackpink listed as 2016–2023 given they have neither disbanded nor announced a hiatus, if anything they've just renewed.” I would argue that by viewing an ending date most people would assume some official end of activities, temporary or permanent, as opposed to “it just so happens they haven't done anything so far this year”. That a lot of people don't agree with your definition is further evidenced by how frequently you appear to be reverting changes to that effect.

Having said that, IMHO it shouldn't be up to the editors of this list to make this call to begin with; instead I think this page should just mirror whatever each artist's own page says (assuming it's actively maintained of course), giving deference to the subject matter experts over there. As @98Tigerius says anything else results in inconsistencies, which in turn leads to confusion. Ravinglogician (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because the Wikipedia article of Blackpink states a different thing, it doesn't mean this article has to follow it though. Wikipedia articles aren't being used as a reference here. Like I've already said, unless you can provide that Blackpink actually did something as a group in year 2024, then that's the only time this article should label them as an active group in 2024. Doing otherwise is misinformation. Just because they haven't disbanded or haven't announced a hiatus, it doesn't make them an active group in the present year. Its literally the case with Girls' Generation. Hotwiki (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

May I add its also been six months, that they renewed their contract as a group. Since then, there hasn't been a seasons greetings from the group, no video uploaded on their social media accounts showcasing a group activity in 2024, no public appearance as a group anywhere, nothing in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Flabshoe1: please provide a reference a 2024 activity from Blackpink, that would make them an active group in 2024. A YG film release that was filmed from their 2023 tour is not it, unless you see the group themselves actively promoting it. Also I just came across this article.[3] It stated they won't have group activities in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that, according to your standard of inactivity, Blackpink have not done anything as a group so far in calendar year 2024. I simply don't agree it's a good standard to begin with, for the reasons I outlined in my original comment. And clearly a lot of people don't agree with your standard judging from the fact that, by my count, you've had to enforce it 4 times in the last month alone. (And I say that with much appreciation for the thankless task you've taken upon yourself of defending this page against a lot of otherwise nonsensical drive-by edits.)

It's also a standard that's not enforced consistently within the page: there are probably other groups in the “since XXXX” category that haven't done much if anything in the last year or two (at least according to their main Wikipedia page), though I'm loathe to point out any one them in particular because you'll then probably go and change those too…

Another thing worth pointing out is that in the absence of some actual announcement to link to, I feel that you or I or anyone else going to their social media etc and ascertaining that there has been no activity effectively constitutes original research, which Wikipedia tends to frown upon. On the other hand it's completely different if there exists an outside article making that claim such as the one you provided, even from a source as disreputable as Koreaboo. So at least for me personally, if you were to add that article as a reference to the 2016–2023 annotation, I'd have no further objections.

Having said that, that same Koreaboo article does also claim that they're going to have an event for their anniversary, thus this whole discussion might turn out to be moot after all… Ravinglogician (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, once Blackpink have done something in 2024 as a group. Then thats the only time, in my opinion, that the group should be labeled as an active group in 2024. Blackpink group activity. Doing otherwise is a misinformation. One of its members just released a solo single the other day. Anyway there's six more months left in the year 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging you guys — Paper9oll, Ss112, Nkon21, Btspurplegalaxy — to get more opinion about this dispute on idol group's year active. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 06:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius: I asked you before, to give a Mamamoo and Blackpink activity in 2024. You still haven't posted any 2024 activity from those groups, that would verify them as an active group in the present year. If you are contesting about this topic, then you should probably give a response when someone responded to the talk page topic you've started. Hotwiki (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

May I add, for the editors who might be just reading this talk page discussion. I think its a misinformation to add "present" in the years active table column, to girl groups that have zero group activity in the present year (2024). Its misinformation, and would also make the article seem "outdated" as the article might not be keeping on track with the listed groups' yearly activity especially when there's none to begin with - which is pretty much the case with Blackpink. I've asked @98Tigerius: and @Ravinglogician: directly about this, and both couldn't even mention a group activity for Blackpink in the present year and we already halfway in 2024 as well, so its not like this was just decided in the first month of 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest keeping it as is for now. Unless there are reports of a hiatus, I wouldn't change it. Blackpink is known for having long periods without group activities. If it's been three or more years without any activity, then it would be appropriate to update their article to past tense. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If Blackpink does 1 activity in 2024, even if its just a small group video greeting (like Wjsn's 2024 activities), it should be changed to 2016-present. But its been six months this year, and still nothing from the group. What happens when its January 1, 2025 and still nothing? If Blackpink eventually does something, then this should be updated. Hotwiki (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also from 2016 to 2023, Blackpink have done something in each of those years even if they didn't release a new single in more than 12 months.Hotwiki (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct, you asked me directly and I replied to you directly why I don't agree this is the right metric to ascertain inactivity, as did others. Yet you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and implying that everyone who disagrees with you is peddling misinformation. We're honestly just talking past each other, which is unfortunate. Ravinglogician (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay about that, I can't find anything but that doesn't mean what you imply should be followed, the WP:STATUSQUO in my opinion is WP:OR as there's no reliable source that the groups are inactive as they are. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius: can you explain how a girl group can be active in the present year (2024), when there's literally no activity from the group in the present year? Also as I already pointed out, just because it shows "2016-2023" in the article, its not an indication that the girl group went into a hiatus or disbanded. It just means they aren't active or haven't done anything in the present year which is true anyway. This is the same case with Girls' Generation which is listed as "2007–17, 2021–22", that girl group never disbanded and didn't announce hiatus in the past. Hotwiki (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I also have given the most recent group appearance of Mamamoo (August 2023) and Blackpink (November 2023) in this talk page back on June 13, 2024. The reference for those dates are also posted here and so far, no one pointed out those are wrong, so how can it be original research, when the dates I have given are backed up with a reference. Original research is assuming that a girl group is active in 2024, when you can't even give a single activity they did in the present year that would prove that they are an active group in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also these articles [4][5] exist which are related to the group's inactivity in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Girls' Generation as an example, but in their case there's a very specific thing that happened (and was announced) in 2017: two members left the agency and the group went into an extended hiatus as a result. And even in their case, if say we were having this discussion in 2018 I would not have advocated personally for writing “2007–2017”; it's only with the benefit of hindsight that we can see that there was a multi-year hiatus, and therefore their Years Active should be written with a break in between.

Furthermore note that for Girls' Generation your approach is again at odds with what their main page says, which is “2007–2017, 2022–present”. Therefore bringing them up as an example doesn't really support your argument, it's more of the opposite: they too should be listed as “…–present” because no event or announcement has transpired which would suggest otherwise. Ravinglogician (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Reading through this dispute and reviewing the prior nine discussions, I have not found a WP:CONSENSUS explicitly endorsing the rationale behind the statement "because x haven't done anything in y [hence] z [is an inactive] group", made on 13 June 2024 at 05:29 UTC. Furthermore, upon examining the article's history, more than 39% of its edits were made by the proponent of the statement. Given their primary advocacy for this reasoning and substantial involvement in editing the article, their assertion should not carry significant weight in forming a CONSENSUS on this dispute. Implying inactivity without substantiating it with WP:RELIABLE SOURCEs, as required by WP:BURDEN to WP:VERIFY the rationale (i.e., the quoted statement), appears to involve WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Since there is disagreement among the parties (98Tigerius, Hotwiki, Ravinglogician) involved, seeking assistance in resolving this dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard may be the best course of action at this stage. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)