Talk:List of South Korean idol groups (2010s)

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Could someone clarify this?

Known to be the "2nd Big Mama" because in the middle of the third octave singing pasyap (#) to rise high and why members of this colorful group is the 'second Big Mama'.

This does not make sense to me. Maybe I am being completely silly, but I don't understand this statement. This is from the description of the group Yell,O.W. from the debuted in 2013 section. Is there a simpler way to put this? Also, some parts of this need some grammatical correction. Thank you to whoever can clarify this for me. NikaGirl (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might need some clarification

They have an official debut in Japan. Members are Kwon Kwangjin, Lee Seunghyub, Kim Jaehyun, Cha Hun. Jaehyun is Rainbow Jaekyung little Brother and Kwangjin was a Pre-Debut Member of CNBlue.

This is taken from the description of N.Flying from the groups debuting in 2014. This could be written in a way that is easier to understand. Such as,

They have already debuted in Japan. The members are Kwon Kwanjin, Lee Seunghyub, Kim Jaehyun, Cha Hun. Kim Jaehyum is the younger brother of Jaekyung, a member of the girl group Rainbow. Kwon Kwangjin was a pre-debut member of group CNBlue.

What do you all think? NikaGirl (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar / Eric Mun

Stellar is no longer produced by Eric Mun, so I deleted it. He's had nothing to do with them for quite some time and is not under the same management. Sources abound; please don't make me dig them out. Such information isn't really relevant to a simple listing of groups anyway. (side note: I lived in Korea for years and I've only ever heard of a tiny fraction of these groups. Yeesh! LOL) Shinyang-i (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric also did not create Stellar! Quit putting out-of-date or unsourced random stuff about Eric on Stellar's entry. That stuff all belongs on Stellar's article, anyway, not here. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information overkill?

In looking over this series of "List of South Korean idol groups" articles, I'm struck by how different it is than other "list of bands" articles on Wikipedia.

1) No other "list of bands" spans multiple articles.

2) No other "list of bands" include anything other than the band name and (for some), active years. They do not include the group's name in native script, leader name, number of members, gender of members, exact date of debut, management company, fanclub name, fanclub color, previous/future affiliations of members, etc. ALL of that information surely belongs on the groups' individual articles.

3) No other "list of bands" includes non-notable groups; all listed have Wikipedia pages. Those who are not notable are not listed because...they are not notable! The fact someone debuted or may in the future debut (2015 debuts are listed?! it's still 2014!) does not make them notable.

Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for kpop, and it is not a source for kpop enthusiasts to document (or find) every minutiae of the fandom. I'm sure there are people who would like to have this level of detail available and easily accessible, but surely Wikipedia - an encyclopedia, not a fanwiki - is not the place for it. Thoughts? Please share them! Shinyang-i (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, what is notable is the sheer number of groups that are debuting each year by the major companies. The reason they don't have their own English-language Wikipedia page is simply because there's no one making them. I bet almost all have Korean-language Wiki pages, even the acts that release one single before breaking up. Curated properly, this page is a useful resource. Junganghansik (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

WINNER should be in all caps because that's how they romanize it themselves. That aside, this list is basically now bullcorn anyway. Not having their own Wikipedia page should NOT be the sole criteria used to determine notability. If a group debuted, they should be here. This is not a list for discussion of relevancy. It's a list with one purpose: to show which groups debuted during these years. 67.154.150.162 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-caps names (except for acronyms) violates Wikpedia's naming conventions and artist (or fan) desire is irrelevant. Extensive inclusion of non-notable and unverified information is not Wikipedia's purpose. Lists are subject to Wikipedia policy, and cannot be for just whatever you want them to be for. Wikipedia prohibits exhaustive lists of everything that ever existed in a category, which is what you want this list to be. Hardcore groups of fans for other subjects have mostly accepted this and make use of other websites for expressing the kind of information you want to express. For the love of everything, please go do that and leave the people here alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.50.33 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

this page has been destroyed by Random86, it was previously a comprehensive list of south korean idol groups, including all the debuts, but now this tyrannical jerk has made it impossible to know anything that is going on with new groups. please revert to the table layout and allow people to input groups that, while they might not have wiki articles (the previous list was just text, not links) are still living breathing human beings that exist. Fixing things022 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done the criteria for inclusion in lists such as this are at WP:LISTPEOPLE and are quite clear.
The table before it was reduced contained vast numbers of totally unreferenced, non-notable people and groups.
We do not want to know what "is going on with new groups", we are not trying to be "cutting edge" or a "news-site", we are an encyclopedia and only include notable individuals and groups that meet WP:BIO, those that do not merit an article, do not merit inclusion. - Arjayay (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add MINX | Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you please add MINX under year 2014? MINX debuted on 18 September 2014.

Biopolymath (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of tables is starting to get ridiculous

The use of tables is starting to get seriously ridiculous, I suggest we go back to the old version where it was nothing more than a bullet-ed list.

We really do not need all this extra information such as gender, member numbers, Japanese debut date and notes. Why? simply because there is no need to list the information twice when really all one needs to do is click on the groups name to go to their article where all the information is anyway. Not to mention in a another couple of years this article will get too long with the table structure.

As such, Shinyang-i brings up a very good and valid point from his section about information overkill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_South_Korean_idol_groups_%282010s%29#Information_overkill.3F

Aside from what he had said is there any particular reason why we need to have all this extra information when it is on their official Wikipedia pages?

Alicia leo86 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestion, Alicia leo86; I agree completely. To Emzidrama, Erielmorelli, and other interested parties: this list should be a list. The table format is excessive, cumbersome, and ridiculous. No list articles work this way--at least no decent list articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Alicia and Drmies. The table format is not good for list articles. Dr. K. 02:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a lock on these three articles, because we all know they will be reverted back to the table format later. Alicia leo86 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone took out most of the information on this article. Not sure if most or less people agree with whoever changed the whole article. The groups on the current one only has the groups that have their own article or somewhat known. We can always change it back. Let us know about your opinion.

Alright, let's make a vote: http://www.poll-maker.com/poll588187xb0a04c50-25 Angel28065 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nope. Wikipedia doesn't work this way. Please see WP:NOTVOTE. See also the discussion in the thread just above. Dr. K. 02:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's now how we "vote" here". (And who is "us"?) I removed the heading, since your comment really belongs in the previous thread. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Dr. K. 02:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is funny: I voted "other" and the "Results breakdown" shows up as "other: 0%". Isn't that odd, User:Angel28065? And then I got an ad for Minecraft. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thank you Doc for the update. I would have never thought of testing the polling site. :) Dr. K. 03:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still at zero votes, so I suppose you also voted for something other than "original format"? BTW, at some point this list was over 70k. OMG! over 129k! Drmies (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given this edit, Teemeah, you may be interested in this discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't bother to vote at all. I dislike online polls. Thank you for the links. I didn't know this list had reached such monstrous size. Dr. K. 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we don't vote over polls in outside pages... There is no use for usig outside websites. You can decide here on the talk page or the Project page. The table is bothersome to maintain, that is for sure. And since per policy we are only able to include bands that have or very likely to have wikipedia pages in the future, I admit that the table arrangement is very unnecessary and difficult to suprvise. I say we discard the tables for all such lists. If a band does not yet have a Wikipedia entry but is notable, it can be in the list, I think, provided there are sources for its notability. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNBLUE

Hello all, I just removed CNBLUE from the list during 2010 as the wikipedia states they have been active since 2009. But upon further research they made their Korean debut in 2010. The made their Japan debut in 2009 but for this debut it is currently featured on the list for early 2000s. Should they be added back to the 2010 list and removed from the 2009 list? Or should it stay as it is with just being featured on the 2009 list?Ohmyfifthharmony (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]