Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture

Album projects?

K-pop has seen an increase in multiple part albums recently. Notably NCT 2020 Resonance, Never Gonna Dance Again, and the upcoming Epik High album, Epik High is Here. But the question is how do we sort all these albums? Each one seems to have its separate rules.

NCT 2020 Resonance has the part 1 and 2 albums in separate pages. Past 2013 SHINee albums, The Misconceptions of You, Me, and Us, were also separate pages until now, with Misconceptions of Us being referred to as a compilation album. On the other hand, Taemin's Never Gonna Dance Again albums are under 1 page, Act 1 and 2 shared there, all parts deemed collectively as his 3rd album. So is Seoulite by Lee Hi, and Coup' d'etat by G-Dragon.

Recently this type of scenario occurred with a British album, Song Machine, Season One: Strange Timez, by Gorillaz, which had 7 EPs release before they were all put together for this album. In debating as to whether this was a compilation or album, we referred to an old argument on the page for Born Agan by Notorious B.I.G. which separated the difference between albums and compilations. In this it said that albums were comprised of recordings that were in the same sessions and were recorded with the ultimate goal of releasing them as this full album, while compilations would feature recordings from various other sessions over the years that weren't intended to be on the same record together. So if this is the case I'm thinking that all multipart albums should be covered in 1 page like this and Never Gonna Dance Again as 1 full studio album.

That's just my input tho, its a messy and inconsistent situation and I'm wondering if it can be resolved collectively here since it seems to persist. - K-popguardian (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Resonance has only one article (edit)now(edit). It was merged in August of last year. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I sent this message on January 6, 2021. Long before the August move lol. - K-popguardian (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was simply replying to lyk that since you raised your concerns, the NCT-related issue had been handled. Inserted 'now' in my orig reply above for clarity. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Kim Woo-jin (singer)

Hi, I created Kim Woo-jin (singer) just a day ago for WP:WAM and it's already becoming a magnet for disruptive editing. I figured this would be the case, but I wasn't expecting the trouble to come right out of the gate. If you're interest, please help keep this article in order. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Very disappointed on WikiProject Korea

Korea's palace life and Joseon dynasty drama series are popular and greatly influenced on other part of Asian countries including India. It is a major achievement of Korean culture. I'm proud of Korean palace court drama, these are very interesting and amazing. I love to watching and teaching Korean royal culture through movies and TV series. I don't understand why Korean Wiki Editors don't create the about of Joseon historical figures? I've created an article behalf of Korean editor about Hong Guk-yeong, one of the main characters of the current hit drama The Red Sleeve. Are Korean Editors very rare on En-Wiki due to weak of English ?. Very lazy! So sad. VocalIndia (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories for ex-idols

After recently reading through Jang Minho's page, and as well as from experience editing articles on a lot of contemporary K-pop musicians for years, I thought that there would definitely have been idols that have came and gone. I do not want to add the South Korean (fe/male) idols category on an article, like the one aforementioned (male), whilst feeling indecisive if the subject would still be considered an idol after they stopped being one for as long as 20 years ago.

Proposed new category pages

• Category:South Korean former idols
• Category:South Korean former female idols
• Category:South Korean former male idols

Approval is much needed, please! —lIl-†V!^{wanna talk?`} 22:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories are not meant to make a distinction between current and former status, see WP:CATNAME#Nationality and occupation: "Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist." Even if Jang Minho is no longer an idol, he should still be categorized in the existing idol category tree as he was one in the past. ✗plicit 00:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The conditions of Disbandment

This has been a heavily inconsistent thing when it comes to K-pop articles on Wikipedia and I just want to understand how this works because it seems like the conditions differ with each and every group.

There are some groups like B.A.P. and Kara where most or all of the members departed the label, with the labels describing them as such and not referencing them as disbanded or active. Following after this members would immediately state the group hasn't disbanded at all, Kara's Youngji and Gyuri having stated this more than once, and a B.A.P. member saying talks of disbandment were never brought up when they discussed their departures. However, Wikipedia has marked both as officially disbanded because articles reporting on the events used the term "disbanded" despite not proving such. Arguments I've had about this in the past have stated that word of the company and media matters more than that of the group members.

Meanwhile you have GOT7, who left with JYP's statement saying that they'd cheer on the members in their future endeavors without making it clear whether the group was active or disbanded. The members would later clarify themselves this was a hiatus, but unlike B.A.P. and Kara, they're still considered an active group on hiatus.

In another analogy, you have groups like Speed and The SeeYa, who left without any statements of disbandment from the company or members, but their disbandment was concluded based on the lack of website. Both had their websites deleted in 2016, and that seems reasonable enough. Now you have The Grace who has absolutely no promotional website or social media of any kind, and hasn't been active since 2010, and every member is gone from the label. However, they're still considered to be a unified group still because SM never considered them disbanded. Many of After School's socials have been converted to be social media pages promoting Nana, who's the only member left under the label. The group hasn't been active since 2015, and Lizzy has many years ago that the members have all gone their separate ways over time, no longer working together or promoting. They are also the only act from Pledis that Hybe has 0 connection to, despite them owning the label. The most recent discussion I've had over this was on the talk page for TRCNG. The group's label was shut down earlier in 2021, as was the website. The socials are no longer active, and there's no one who's commented on the status of any of the TS groups since then (though we marked Sonamoo as disbanded when a member confirmed it herself.)

I really want to understand the conditions of disbandment, and I'm hoping that we could possibly discuss them to make sure that it's all consistent? - K-popguardian (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update factor to this argument: I was looking at SM's website and noticed that f(x) no longer has a page on their website. SM has also never stated that the group would still be active under the label, and the only person who's come out and said it's not disbanded is Luna when she was referred to as a former member. Meanwhile Amber has said herself in an interview there's currently no plans for f(x) to come together. Yet Wikipedia has continued to maintain that f(x) is still a group that hasn't disbanded, despite all the deciding factors for other disbandments being here. - K-popguardian (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think like with everything we have to use reliable secondary sources. So if it is a reliable source referring to them as disbanded, even if there's no other announcements to go off, that would be what to follow. However, I'm not sure if you were considering this to be included in the issue, but I do think that updating the "years active" section doesn't need to have a group be referred to being disbanded before it doesn't say to present. Using your f(x) example, if secondary sources don't refer to them as disbanded, I wouldn't include in the lead/article that they are "disbanded", even if evidence such as their removal from SM's website seems to indicate they are, as I would say that violates WP:ORIGINAL, but I think that the years active shows they were last active in 2019 makes sense. I definitely think in some situations it can seem frustrating when it seems that the obvious conclusion is that a group is disbanded, but including that if there aren't secondary sources already stating it, I would say is original research. Nangears (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

Launched an AfD the other day for Up10tion's Stardom EP, hasn't gotten any responses yet and could use 'em. Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)