Jump to content

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups

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

RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

[edit]
Editors generally agree on the "Debut and Disbandment" method proposed below. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the DRN has been closed by the volunteer admin, I'm opening this RfC to have a clear consensus about the matter that was discussed above. Should there be an "end date" for the groups who just don't have an activity this year even though they are still active in the industry?

Edit: Additionally, this should also apply to List of South Korean boy bands. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 07:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a 2024 activity for girl groups like Blackpink and Mamamoo, to warrant having the word "present" in their "years active" column? You seem determined to change this, but the inactivity of both groups isn't helping your argument. Also, just because a girl group didn't announce a hiatus and disbandedment, it doesn't automatically make them an "active group" especially we are already halfway in the present year (2024) and there's still zero activity from those girl groups. That was literally the case with Girls' Generation from 2018 to 2020, 2023 and 2024, who never announced a disbandment/hiatus. Hotwiki (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am determined that's why I'm seeking consensus for this matter and by putting an end year to those active groups is purely an original research. In the case of SNSD, they were on hiatus for a couple of years and have this reliable source to back it up. And please re-read Paper9oll comment above. Also this is only about "hiatus". 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 08:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it just fine and I still disagree. If Blackpink and Mamamoo should be labeled as "active groups" by having the word "present" in the years active column, then you should provide a reference showcasing their 2024 activity. I have asked you this before and you clearly said, you couldn't find anything they did in 2024, and this is why I simply don't agree with you. Changing it to "2016-present" and "2014-present" when both girl group are inactive in 2024, would imply the article is already outdated. Hotwiki (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source stating Mamamoo's group activity, now can you provide to us that they announced their inactivity as a group? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I can still do that, when you already posted a 2024 activity for Mamamoo? I directly asked you in the first place @98Tigerius: to post a 2024 activity for that group. Please avoid being sarcastic in talk pages. Hotwiki (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being sarcastic here but just asking you too as you keep pushing me to find a reliable source for their group activity. Imo, the wrong with your arguments is that you assumed a group being inactive solely because they don't have group activity. So what's your other option for this matter? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing "years active" as "group status". Those two are different. I already brought this up before, just because a group that doesn't have "present" in their years active column - it automatically doesn't mean the group already disbanded or in a hiatus or never coming back. They just don't have a 2024 activity (yet) to warrant that "present" word or "since 20**" in the "years active" column. Now that you have provided a 2024 Mamamoo activity which was uploaded in June 2024 based from the YouTube you shared, you don't see me arguing changing it to "2014-2023" or "2014-2024". Hotwiki (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki: I think you mean "2014-present". Anyway, I think the users here are conflating the two, indeed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "2014–present" is shown in Mamamoo's Wikipedia article through its infobox. I don't edit that Wikipedia article. Its different here in this List of South Korean girl groups, which its "since 20**". But yeah I think people are confusing "years active" to "group status". Hotwiki (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki: Right. Anyway, Lightoil argument below seems nonsensical, as you can't prove inactivity, only activity, which in turn proves inactivity if there is no activity in a given year. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to have to agree with 98Tigerius on this one we should not be putting end dates due to inactivity not disbandment without sources backing it up instead we should leave it as active till something changes and not engage in original research. Activity is hard to define for example Blackpink's Lisa recently released a song and Mamamoo's members are still individually active. Lightoil (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightoil: why are you bringing solo activities here, when we know solo activities aren't part of group activities. Lisa isn't signed as a soloist in YG Entertainment. She set up her own agency (Lloud), which is the same thing with Jennie (Odd Atelier) and Jisoo (Blissoo). YG Entertainment no longer has a say when it comes to the solo career of Lisa, Jisoo and Jennie. As for Mamamoo - Hwasa (P Nation) and Wheein (The L1ve) are signed in different agencies as well, and not Mamammo's home label (RBW). Hotwiki (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Solo activities do show that they are active so we should not be so hasty in labeling their group inactive. Furthermore, whatever agency managing their solo activities does not really matter. Lightoil (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever said those members are inactive as a soloists? Again solo activities are excluded from group activities. Why are you counting Lisa's solo material as Blackpink's activity, especially when Lisa's latest solo release wasn't released by Blackpink's home labeL YG Entertainment. Thats like saying One Direction is still an active group because of Harry Styles' solo music. That is such weak argument from both you @Lightoil: and @98Tigerius:. Just because certain members are still in the music industry, it doesn't mean the group they debuted, is still active. Both of you cannot give a 2024 group activity for those groups. Hotwiki (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am saying is that we should not be too hasty in labeling them as inactive as they had engaged in activities last year and instead use reliable sources that say Blackpink and Mamamoo are inactive before adding an end date. Lightoil (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackpink and Mamamoo don't have a 2024 activity yet, which is why "present" shouldn't be included in the years active column. 2016-2023/2014-2023 are way more accurate, than "2016-present" and "2014-present" as of today. The "Years active" column is merely showing the years that these girl groups are active. You @Lightoil: and @98Tigerius:, shouldn't see as it as an "end date", as this would be updated right away, once Blackpink/Mamamoo have done something new as a group. Plenty of record companies/agencies don't hand out press releases, when their artists enter inactivity for a period of time, which was the case with girl groups like Girls' Generation and the Spice Girls, which had/have members went on to making solo music. As for references, I have already posted here in this talk page about the most recent activity of Blackpink/Mamamoo which was in 2023. Also for Blackpink, I have already posted several articles regarding their inactivity in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, implying inactivity NOT disbandment (regardless of indicating it with "–[END YEAR]" and/or "(hiatus)" and/or any similar deviations) without supporting it with WP:RELIABLE SOURCEs from primary source (worse case scenario) or reputable secondary sources (preferred method) that explicity supported the status made is basically deliberately introducing WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, this is regardless of which subject that we are discussing on in this article, there should not be a specific rule applied just for a subset of data. I also believe that providing reliable sources from reputable sources is necessary for this article, in particularly when handling this disputed area which is believe to be controversial given the "heated" discussion above and of course spinning off to moderated DRN and back here with RfC. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC); edited for clarity due to strawman fallacy 12:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a girl group is "active" in the present year, why no one here can provide a 2024 group activity from Blackpink and Mamamoo? Labeling them as an active group when there's no reference that those girl groups are active in the present year is purely misinformation. You keep tossing "original research". But when I asked for references for their 2024 activities, you couldn't give any as well. What happens when those girl groups remain inactive for the rest of 2024, then 2025 and so on? Would those times be the time to remove "present" in the years active column? Blackpink and Mamamoo should have the word "present" beside their debut year, when they have done something as a group in the present year which is 2024. I'm also looking forward to January 1, 2025, to see if they were inactive the entire 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure I'm responding to a RfC question not #Year active nor was my comment indented under other's editors comment ... just checked again ... yes the section was indeed correct and my initial comment to this section and its indentation was indeed correct. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper9oll: The flip side is that can you prove that a group is still active? If not, then it is inactive. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ValenciaThunderbolt I'm not here to debate this btw as this isn't the goal of this RfC for this article and its contents exclusively (it's in bold because your replies here suggested un-familiarization of this RfC) as I have clearly stated in earlier reply, and please get yourself familiarize on what caused this RfC itself. In short, the debate and your type of rationale argument is long over as it was clearly a stalemate and causing a circular discussion going now where hence this RfC was created hence don't ping me again here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't PROVE inactivity, but you CAN prove activity. Its activities attest to whether they are active or not. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ValenciaThunderbolt Nice try forcing me to engage by misrepresenting statements I never made. You must not make strawman fallacies about other editors' (including mine) comments, such as implying their comments are "conflat[ing inactivity with] disbandment" when they did not explicitly indicate such. I will only tolerate this incorrect behavior once; if it happens again, whether through direct or indirect replies, we will address it at the noticeboard. Regarding your statement that one can't prove inactivity but can prove activity: this presents a contradiction. It suggests that while activity can be proven based on reported occurrences, it implied that original research and speculation are acceptable in this context because proving inactivity isn't possible. Hence, I stated that maintaining "–present" is appropriate in my initial reply above. It's neutral and aligns with Wikipedia's policies on VERIFY and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, ensuring verifiability without introducing original research, thus addressing both scenarios without presenting contradiction. Your reply is optional. Should you wish to reply, please ensure that your response addresses only my comment and does not go out-of-scope to keep this discussion productive. Failure to adhere to this format will result in responses only if they are in scope, or no further responses. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with 98Tigerius, Lightoil and Paper9oll that we could be introducing original research to the articles if we just decide it's year of inactivity without any official sources or statements, although I can see where Hotwiki's point is coming from. It is a gray area as we have precedent like the Spice Girls and One Direction who just went years of hiatuses or disbandment without any official statement.
However, I feel it works a bit different for K-Pop as sometimes solo member's activity is also tied to the group name which makes things harder to define, as you can also argue that it's also an activity from part of the group. What about the subunits also? Where sometimes half of the group members didn't even participate as well.
To be on the safe side and save the troubles, let's only determine a group's inactivity from a primary and direct source (word from company or group members) or general consensus (like everyone now pretty much agree that SNSD went into hiatus and definitely is 'inactive' after 2017). In this case I think it was too early to determine that Blackpink's activity ended in 2022, and people aren't really agreeing with that yet as you can see. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox of Girls' Generation's Wikipedia Page shows "2007–2017, 2022–present". Which means the editors in that article, didn't count 2018 - the year when the subunit, Oh!GG was launched. Hotwiki (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also may I add, I don't think anyone here said, specifically ME - said Blackpink ended in 2022. They were touring in 2023 and had their most recent group appearance back in November 2023, when they met King Charles of the United Kingdom. Three of Blackpink's members are no longer signed with Yg Entertainment for solo activities. Hotwiki (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think users mix up the parametre in the infobox with activity vs duration as a group. Activity =/= end of a group. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that's how @98Tigerius: sees it. Hotwiki (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki: I wish users see it like that. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there should be an end date or any implication of inactivity without reliable sources backing that up. Right now, the distinction is arbitrary and fueled by WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. For example, this year on July 31, 2024 Blackpink is releasing a concert film into theaters, meaning that the group is actively releasing content. All reliable sources report on this film as a girl group releasing a film, and not a group that is inactive. The user disputing this claimed that the release of film doesn't count as group activity because it was pre-filmed in 2023. However, other groups such as BTS who have been in the military since 2022 yet have released pre-recorded music and other content are labelled as currently active by Wikipedia, so there is clearly some lack of clarity on what group activity means. Therefore, rather than personal interpretations and original research to define this, it should be best to use a reliable source instead to determine group inactivity. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flabshoe1: Don't entirely disagree with you, but if a group disbands, let's say, two years after their last activities, it should be stated in the infobox that there last activities were two years prior to disbanding. I wouldn't include member activities as, despite being a group while inactive, it isn't the group that is active, it is the members separately. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Blackpink members even promoting this concert film? Just because a record label releases something from their signed artists, it doesn't mean those signed artists are active, in this case Blackpink - it just means the record label/agency has the power to release new material - in this case, a material filmed in 2023. Plenty of record labels have done this in the past. Anyway, that concert film will be out by the end of this month, so we shall see if there's going to be finally a 2024 Blackpink group appearance. Hotwiki (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Infobox_musical_artist#years_active - the template is pretty factual "Period(s) during which the act was or has been active." If they are active as a musical act, then there should be at least one event or promotion that shows it in the article itself. I don't read this to imply the opposite here - only that there is evidence of activity in the stated years. Evaders99 (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit that I was ill-informed and confused about the parameter about the definition of "years active". It was not known to me that Wikipedia has that definition all along and now its making sense. I am going to agree with this parameter and say Blackpink's activity did ended on 2023 (for now). (On the other hand didn't that vlog count as an activity for Mamamoo now in 2024?)
    And now what do we do with the inconsistency for this list and the group wiki page? Blackpink's year active is stated as present still. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mamamoo's June 2024 YouTube vlog was already brought up here, hence why its no longer "2014–23" in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes I only just saw that. Thank you. Haven't been here in a while. Hooplasledge23 (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackpink will have a future event as already announced ([1] [2]) by their label YG Entertainment last month (on June 21 to be exact) that they will release a concert film by the end of this month (July 31). So to say their activity ended last year is OR. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that film being promoted by the members, or merely a YG Entertainment release? A 2024 release (that was filmed way back in 2023) from the label doesn't automatically mean that the group is active in year 2024, especially if the group members themselves aren't doing promotional work. Hotwiki (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it was filmed last year doesn't mean it is not an activity, there's a term "pre-production" for a reason. And what you implied is a WP:SYNTH. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 18:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a 2024 activity, when the film being sceened was filmed in 2023? Also, I already asked this several times in this talk page, are the Blackpink members doing promotional activities for this upcoming movie? Answer that please. Hotwiki (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Evaders99: Looks like only you, Hotwiki and I understand the purpose of the parametre, compared to the other three, who seem to conflate disbandment and activity for the purpose of the parametre. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters that Blackpink and Mamamoo haven't released anything so far this year; as far as has been announced, they are both still groups, and speculating that they're not going to be active this year fails WP:CRYSTAL. On January 1st, 2025? Sure, you can use retrospect to say that they weren't active in 2024. But for now, we can't say anything until we have an announcement. Otherwise, are we going to change every group to "xx-2024" at the end of this year, until they one by one release music and we can swap them back to "xx-present"? Orangesclub (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it could be changed to "xx-2024" by the end of the year, if groups haven't done anything in 2025. It would be easily revert to "since 20xx", once groups have something else next year. Again, I'm gonna repeat myself, the main reason why Blackpink is listed with "2016-23" is because they haven't done anything as a group in the present year (2024). This could easily be changed, if they made a single appearance as a group, similar to Mamamoo. But so far, no one here could post an actual 2024 activity from Blackpink. YG Entertainment could release a dozens of things this year, things that were already filmed in the previous years, but if the members of Blackpink aren't promoting those, then they aren't really active. It just means, the label is doing the work for them. Hotwiki (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your threshold? Two months of inactivity, we mark a group inactive? Six months? I think that's more confusing than a few select acts going on unannounced breaks. How is that not speculation? Orangesclub (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no speculation here. "Years active" should ONLY cover years when there were/are activity/ies. 2016–23 is accurate for Blackpink, as those were the years that they were active as a group. Name a 2024 activity from Blackpink which had the members participated that wasn't filmed/recorded in the previous years. Also, I don't agree that we need to wait an entire year, to decide if a group was inactive for 2024. We are in 2024, the present year. Please hand out a 2024 activity for the group in your next reply. Hotwiki (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hotwiki Blackpink recently announced an activity see this. Lightoil (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and it did mention "The event is the first full-group activity since the four members were awarded honorary medals from Britain’s King Charles in November last year". The bolded part is I what mentioned several times in this talk page. But thanks for the heads up about their first 2024 full-group activity! Ddd Hotwiki (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gap Year method

[edit]

"Debut and Disbandment" method

[edit]

This proposal replaces the current "Year actives" method with "Debut and disbandment" method by ensuring the information:

  1. presented is clear, factual, and straightforward.
  2. is based on what is explicitly supported by reliable sources for each event (debut and disbandment).
  3. is not speculating or assuming on the group's activity status hence avoiding any form of original research not explicitly supported by reliable sources.
  4. ensures a neutral presentation, avoiding bias or editorializing that could arise from different interpretation of activity status.

In summary, this method is focused on presenting verifiable facts about when a group was formed and when they officially disbanded, aligning with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research, no speculation, and neutrality.

It aims to resolve ongoing disputes by eliminating the need to determine the active or inactive status of groups (note: "inactive" here does not imply "disbandment"; "disbandment" in this proposal refers specifically to a full breakup).

Hence, below are two examples. The column titled "Platinum-certified albums" was observed in the article but was not included in the proposal for simplicity and to avoid cluttering the examples provided. This should not be interpreted as a suggestion for removing the column; if this column exists in the article, it should be retained.

Before After
Option 1
Best-selling generation x South Korean girl groups
Group and years active Notable singles
abc (2000–2010) "ABC" (2000)
"Hello World" (2005)
def (since 2000) "XYZ" (2000)
"Lorem Ipsum" (2005)
...

Other girl groups
Years listed denote debut and disbandment respectively.

  • ghi (2000–2010)
  • jkl (since 2000)
Best-selling generation x South Korean girl groups
Group Debut Disbandment Notable singles
abc 2000[1] 2010[2] "ABC" (2000)
"Hello World" (2005)
def 2000[3] N/A "XYZ" (2000)
"Lorem Ipsum" (2005)
...

Other girl groups
Years listed denote debut and disbandment respectively.

  • ghi (2000–2010)
  • jkl (2000–N/A)
Option 2
Best-selling generation x South Korean girl groups
Group Debut Disbandment Notable singles
abc 2000[1] 2010[2] "ABC" (2000)
"Hello World" (2005)
efg 2000[3] "XYZ" (2000)
"Lorem Ipsum" (2005)
...

Other girl groups
Years listed denote debut and disbandment respectively.

  • ghi (2000–2010)
  • jkl (2000–)

— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC); added "sortable" into the proposal 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

information Note: Please WP:NOTVOTE below by responding with just Support or Oppose. Your discussion must not be placed here.

Option 1

Option 2

Both options

Neither options


Discussion

[edit]

information Note: Responses should be civil and concise, focusing on the rationale of this method and the options presented. This ensures the discussion remains productive and prevents circular arguments. Your WP:NOTVOTE must not be placed here.

Oppose There is really no need to add extra column for "debut" and "disbandment". Especially that's just gonna be blank for active groups like Twice, Red Velvet and numerous "gen 4" girl groups. There's also no need to remove "platinum certified albums" as those are well sourced. In fact, they also occupy less space compare to "notable singles", so I don't see how those are being seen as "clutter". Hotwiki (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki Regarding "Platinum certified albums", I already addressed this in the rationale above, stating that it "was not included in the proposal for simplicity and to avoid cluttering the examples provided. This should not be interpreted as a suggestion for removing the column; if this column exists in the article, it should be retained". I'm unsure why you're suggesting that I implied removal or are discussing such. This raises the question of whether you read the entire rationale before commenting and voting, as your response seems to have been made hastily without full consideration of the context, which can lead to unproductive discussion. Additionally, you voted in the wrong section, despite clear labeling indicating where voting and discussion should occur – please correct this. Therefore, could you please confirm your understanding of why I suggested this method? It's crucial for ensuring clarity on the proposal's objectives and to ensure that we are on the same page, particularly since this discussion has been ongoing for over a month. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub Making it WP:SORTABLE could be considered however I won't include it for now as the main focus is to resolve the ongoing disputes that has lasted for over a month. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub @Flabshoe1 Given the suggestions to make the proposal also be WP:SORTABLE, I had proceed to update the proposal. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

Discussion has became stale. According to WP:RFCCLOSE:

"An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{Rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins ... But editors should not wait for that"

Based on observations, the discussion has "last[ed] until enough comment has been received" as participants have exhausted their comments, making the conversation circular. Therefore, "it is clear the discussion has run its course" for approximately 42 days (inclusive of the approximately 14 days since the RfC started). There is a clear consensus for the proposed "Debut and disbandment" method.

Hence, what now?

  1. Wait for Legobot to remove the {{Rfc}} tag in approximately 18 days before implementing?
  2. Request proper closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests (though it may be rejected due to #1 of the listing requirements) before implementing?

— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no required duration as per RFCCLOSE so requesting a proper closure is better than waiting for the bot. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 07:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@98Tigerius Noted, will wait till end of this week (28 July 2024). If there are no further comments made thereafter to this subsection, will proceed to list at Wikipedia:Closure requests. In which, as mentioned in point 2, this option is still subjected to rejection however I also think that a closure from uninvolved editor is more appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_South_Korean_girl_groups&oldid=1250231884"