Talk:Twice albums discography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Signal (Japanese version)

"Signal (Japanese version)" was launched as single countdown to #Twice album and MV was released about short version for taste the song to buy the album, please see Promotional recording#Countdown to album release programs, so it was released as promo single type. The chart wasn't a japanese ver. but original ver. in Billboard Japan chart (June 26, 2017)[1]

Billboard Japan Hot 100 digital downloads?

Is the number next to 総合ポイント数 really digital downloads? Google translates that as "total number of points". Random86 (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think these are digital sales numbers so I'm removing them. Random86 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Japan sales

Should we combine the digital and physical sales as JPN sales figures? Or just separate the sales and put the abbr note behind those figures? --U990467 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to separate Korean and Japanese releases

It's necessary to distinguish between Korean and Japanese releases since both are completely different and separate activities from each other. To name the most relevant articles, Girls' Generation discography, 2NE1 discography, Red Velvet discography, Black Pink discography, Exo discography, BTS discography all do this. –Ermahgerd9 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree to this proposal. Girls' Generation discography is a featured list so I believe it can be done to Twice discography as well. Accireioj (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, and non-Kpop artists with music released in multiple languages don't have it separated on their discography pages (e.g. Celine Dion, Shakira, Selena – all have featured lists). But, if we do gain consensus to separate Korean and Japanese releases here, where would we put What's Twice??. It was released only in Japan but all the songs on it are in Korean. Random86 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides all the differences in how the West and East market multiple-language music, I think this article should just conform and be consistent with the format of the already featured K-Pop discography article and with all the other K-Pop discography articles since those are the most relevant and suitable to this article.

What's Twice? would be put under the Korean language section with an efn explaining that it was exclusively released in Japan. –Ermahgerd9 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week since I addressed the issues about the proposal with no replies. If there are no further comments then I'll take that as a go ahead signal and implement the proposed changes over the weekend/early next week. –Ermahgerd9 (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now implemented the proposed changes after an extended period without any further responses/disagreements from anyone beyond the one already addressed. –Ermahgerd9 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Just have something to say

I don't know why people like to combine the Japanese singles and Korean Singles. They aren't the same thing. The wild part is that the difference is acknowledged on the KARA/BTS/SNSD/BIGBANG/TVXQ/BoA discography list. But some editor is being extremely stubborn in wanting to keep together. It's very petty in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.201.191 (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan chart

Hmmm this is just suggestion. How about remove taiwan five chart, i think that not taiwan's main chart? Thankyou Dora1894 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been wondering for a while why this chart is used here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Five Music is not suitable for inclusion per WP:CHART and is a single-vendor chart. U990467, can you explain more why you think this chart should be included? I'm also pinging Ss112 because he previously removed this chart from Twice album articles. Random86 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i saw that too. But, maybe U990467 have reason why the chart should be include. Dora1894 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my forgetting of reply on the talk page. I think Taiwan chart should be kept not only cause it's one of TWICE members' native country but also being listed in the Kpop featured list like Girls' Generation discography.- U990467 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

But Taiwan five is not taiwan's main chart, not even have wikipedia page itself. For girl generation discography, it used g-music chart, that different chart from twice discography. Yes, taiwan is native country from member, but i think we should keep just a relevant chart like oricon, gaon etc. Its just my little suggestion. Dora1894 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Both G-Music and Five Music, as I understand it, are retail chains in Taiwan. Dora1894 is well within their rights to remove the charts, because they violate WP:SINGLEVENDOR for only representing a portion of sales from select stores in Taiwan. They are obviously not the only stores (physical or digital) that sell CDs in the country. Regardless of whether any members of Twice come from there (and U990467, not meaning to get personal, but you also claim you live there, so this might be why you feel strongly about keeping the charts), Taiwan does not appear to have an impartial sales chart published by an independent company like Korea does with Gaon and Japan does with Oricon. So I think you need to separate yourself from feeling strongly about members' or your own ties with the country and recognise Wikipedia's own guidelines for chart inclusion. If Australia (where I live) did not have a sales chart published by an independent company like ARIA and only by say, our largest retailer of CDs (JB Hi-Fi) or a digital store like iTunes or Apple Music, I would probably not include any charts at all. Just because Taiwanese charts are featured on Girls' Generation discography, does not mean this is correct to do—this is another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ss112 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if we mostly agree for suggestion, i'll remove them. Dora1894 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Title track = Single

See Single (music)#In South Korea. Albums and singles mean physical release in Korean market while the title track means a selected song from the album to be promoted. Title track is more like the concept of a 'single' in western market. --U990467 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

U always do everything what u want. Yesterday u said that these jpn digital single was not their title track, but now u include them. Do everything u like, update their sales what u like, update their weekly sales. Do what u want. Dora1894 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated but please do not denote songs as title tracks when they do not match the album's title. Regardless of how JYP Entertainment defines the term "title track", Wikipedia has its own definition and that's the definition we should follow. For example, "Fancy" is not the title track to Fancy You because the titles are different, just call it a lead single. However, "Feel Special" is indeed a title track from Feel Special, as the titles are the same, so we can call it a lead single and title track. Hayman30 (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Hayman30. The K-pop industry having a different definition of what "title track" and other terms like "B-side" mean does not mean we accept it as popular parlance on the English Wikipedia, because readers who are not familiar with the different meaning will misunderstand or think it is incorrect. Single (music) is not a guideline for how we should write about the topic on Wikipedia, it is an article noting that the terms differ in South Korea. Wikipedia is not written in an in-universe style—as in, we are not written to reflect a South Korean music industry or K-pop fan's perspective. It is written impartially and for readers to learn about topics without necessarily being familiar with that topic's terminology, so "title track" should only be used to refer to a song that shares its title with its parent EP or album—it should be addressed as "lead single" or a "single" in all other cases. Ss112 01:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No just because South Korean music industry and K-pop fans have a different definition of a "single" or a "lead single" doesn't mean that wikipedia would allow it

People who are not exactly familiar with the terminology might get confused Marmala678 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Korean single sales

For dtna or any korean single, did we show download sales like other kpop act or not? Dora1894 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Separate lists

@Paper9oll and Nkon21: It seems like a separate list for Korean and Japanese releases had been proposed before and then, for some reason, it got removed from or was never implemented to the article (I haven't checked yet). I understand the intention of the proponents, however, I could not help myself but to have reservations for this matter. What makes Japanese releases so special that they need to be separated from the rest of the artist's discography? Is this a K-pop–only thing or what? I know that this isn't an isolated case for Twice because for I've seen, this seems like the norm; separating main releases from the Japanese ones. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1 I restored Nkon21 revision it because it seem reasonable to differentiate between Korean and Japanese releases. Of course, it isn't just this article having this type of differentiation implemented. And as you have said, this isn't an isolated case, as there are many articles such as Girls' Generation discography, BoA discography, Exo discography, Blackpink discography, BTS singles discography, Iz*One discography, Oh My Girl discography, Pentagon discography, and many more having such style. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The Feels isn't just a promotional single

@HueMan1: It is clearly listed as a "The 1st Full English Single". This was reverted because of?TheHotwiki (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Thank you for this pointing out. You said it was a "digital" single earlier ([2]). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Which I already removed from my post[3] as it wasn't labeled as a digital single, didn't you see? The Twitter post from Twice's official Twitter account DIDN'T mention it as a digital only single. Again why did you revert that particular edit? What made you conclude that its only a promotional single?TheHotwiki (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Apologies. I didn't see it. My revert was based on your earlier mainspace edit. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if you didn't look at my edit. The reference you posted in the article, clearly stated it as a "Full Single".TheHotwiki (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Yeah, I'm an idiot. I've been wrong right off the bat. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Separate English sub-section

Is this really necessary, Sanastrology? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Promotional singles

Could anyone tell me what is the basis or consensus for "promotional singles" in this article? In the opening paragraph and the infobox, it mentioned TEN. Yet the promotional single section only listed FIVE. So I edited that. This article is confusing and possibly providing misinformation to the readers. Also visiting the official Japanese website of Twice, it said that they only released 8 Japanese singles - songs like Perfect World and BDZ aren't listed despite having a music video release, yet those are listed as "Singles" in this Wikipedia article.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: About the Japanese singles, I think they're referring to single albums (and Twice has 8). HDORS and I have talked about this issue before. I still don't know if a song automatically turns into a single if it's the lead track. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: The song "Perfect World" is as a digital-only single as "Cry for Me" as they were both released online - yet "Perfect World" isn't listed under promotional singles unlike Cry for Me. The only difference is "Perfect World" was released online with a music video. Perfect World only appeared in CDs when its parent album was released in physical format. JYP Entertainment and Twice's official site never labeled it as a "Japanese single". The same argument could be made to BDZ and Fake & True, and thats why those songs and "Perfect World" didn't chart on Oricon Singles Chart, as it only tallies physically sold singles.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: This is what I'm telling HDORS at their talkpage. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

And thats another confusing part. What is really the basis of being a promotional single or a proper single in this article. Its not clear. Being a "digital only single" doesn't automatically mean its only a promotional single. There are plenty of digital only singles in Wikipedia that aren't classified as a promotional single. Cry for Me was also performed in an American show and during an Awards show in South Korea.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Maybe it's JYPE's fault? But what exactly is a promotional single? The Wikipedia definition is unsourced. So, where do we draw the boundary? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HDORS: relisted Cry for Me as a proper single few minutes ago, then @HueMan1: reverted it to as a promotional single. I have been following this article for months and it is confusing.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Because it is a promotional single. Isn't it? Was it released physically? Does it have a music video? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Not all singles have music videos. Like I said before just because a single didn't get a physical release, it doesn't mean its not a single. Again there's a plenty of articles in Wikipedia that has a single status that was barely promoted and didn't get a physical release (example: Slumber Party (song). Plenty of Wikipedia articles for singles didn't get a music video as well (Right Now (Rihanna song). Cry for Me was still performed in a Tv Show and an awards show. Had a promotion through a choreography video. Twice's official site also listed it as a single. You didn't still answer my question, what is basis for this article regarding singles/promotional singles. This article seems misguided and confusing. What Wikipedia guideline are you using? Please direct me to the rule that songs without a physical release / music video can't be considered as a single. Because right now, it looks like you are dictating everything in this article in terms of single status. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: But the website says it's a digital single? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

All three singles of the group Aespa are also digital only singles. None of them have received a physical release and they aren't listed as promotional singles in their Wikipedia article. So your point doesn't make sense. Also if having a music video elevates a song to a single status, then why a Twice song like I Want You Back is under promotional singles? TheHotwiki (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: if there are TEN promotional singles and it should reflect on THE promotional singles section,instead of having just 5 promotional singles listed. You also thanked my edit, only to be reverted. The promotional single count is inconsistent and confusing. Mentioning Likey as a Promotional single in a hidden note is not enough as readers can easily miss those notes and "Digital single" wasn't exactly referred as a promotional single. Now if they were really "promotional singles" as you claimed, it shouldn't be excluded from the promotional singles section, just because they were released as a full proper single in South Korea or elsewhere. If you include Likey, What is Love and the rezt in the promotional singles count, then you could surely mention them in the promotional singles section for consistency. TheHotwiki (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: I actually added the English versions of "More & More" and "I Can't Stop Me" at the promotional singles section but was removed by someone because they're redundant. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: If they were removed for being "redundant", then shouldn't they be excluded from the count as well? From what I'm seeing is it looks like the promotional singles are cherry picked. Therefore making the promotional single section inconsistent to what is shown in the infobox and opening paragraph. The count for studio albums and extended plays are consistent for example. It should be like that for the rest of this article.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: But wouldn't that make the count inaccurate? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: An alternative would be adding a note in the infobox itself. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1:, it could be inaccurate if the Japanese or English version of those songs were released as "promotional singles". I am surely aware of those version being released. My issue is from what I saw in the promotional singles section, it doesn't line up to the count mentioned in the infobox and opening paragraph. My suggestion is mention the other five promotional singles in the promotional singles section, and backed them up with a reference. If another issue arises, it should be discuss in the talk page for consensus.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A note in my opinion isn't enough as it still doesn't line up to what is shown in the promo singles section.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: How are we gonna deal with the redundancy issue? The Japanese and English versions don't have separate chart entries as far as I know. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Then don't include chart positions. Leave it blank. If those versions charted in the 1st place in the main charts, it would have been published.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Wouldn't that imply that they didn't chart or didn't help the original to chart? And is it our fault if a reader is too lazy to hover over a note? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Just list down all TEN promotional singles in the promotional singles section. You didn't have a problem stating that they have that amount of promo singles in the infobox and opening paragraph. It is not complicated. You are now making it about chart positions which is looking like a deflection to what I was saying. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As for "being lazy to hover a note". FYI, I read those hover notes. It still doesn't explain why the Japanese version of 3 Twice songs weren't mentioned in the promotional singles section. So the promotional singles section should be incomplete now? It doesn't make sense. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with TheHotwiki pointers, the counter figure are confusing and fixing is needed. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki and Paper9oll: The other 5 are now on the table. Feel free to take a look. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you remove the see Above link? The Japanese/English version definitely didn't peak in the charts as high as the original Korean version and they were released in different dates. Like I said, leave it blank. Are you even sure the sales of those English/Japanese versions are combined to the Korean version?TheHotwiki (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Why "see above"? Doesn't this implies that the Japanese/English version of Korean version has the same chart position, which isn't the case? In addition, the year listed for some promo singles is also incorrect, using Korean version release year as suppose actual release year, basically conflicting with the information inside the efn tag. For instance, "Likey", efn put 2019 and table put 2017. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki and Paper9oll: Done, but I added unknown instead. This is to distinguish them from the songs that didn't receive certifications. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Again just leave it blank. Adding "unknown" is speculative territory. Its like Wikipedia is implying the official charts failed to release chart positions for the Japanese/English versions.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Wouldn't that be the case either way? Should we at least add a note? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1 I think unknown is acceptable I guess, unless there are other solutions which I can't think of any. I tried looking into the Billboard Japan chart for certain Japanese singles but they just listed them without differentiating hence can't verify if Korean or Japanese version was the one that charted. Some of it are Korean version that charted because the charted date and release date are close to each other and was before Japanese version was release. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I suggested - just leave it blank or write N/A, there's no references that the Japanese/English version even charted. Now if for example, a song like I Can't Stop Me peaked in any charts when the English version was released, feel free to post the reference and its peaked chart position here and thats a big IF. Same case with the other four versions.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: N/A can only be used for charts which ceased to exist. Adding N/A may also imply that it never charted which we don't know either. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki I think changing to N/A is more appropriate, leaving blank may cause subtle introduction of factual errors. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to N/A. Also what about the release of the Japanese version of TT? Why isn't mentioned separately? @HueMan1: used the BTS singles discography page as an example and DNA is mentioned in proper singles and proper Japanese singles. Shouldn't we do that to TT as well?TheHotwiki (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Splitting article without consensus

@Hotwiki Hi, what is the reason for splitting up the article without consensus? While I understand that you mentioned WP:TOOBIG however the entire article is only 4217 bytes (4.217 kb) and falls under "< 40 kb – Length alone does not justify division" hence your reasoning of it being too big is not valid reason in doing so. Not sure if you have read it correctly or not just looking at the kb values, the guidelines stated the sizing must be based on readable prose and not the sizing from history page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Twice singles discography has already been reviewed by an administrator, which you can be viewed in the log page of that article.[4] This article was huge enough to be split into two articles. TheHotwiki (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As for not gathering consensus. I used thatWikipedia:Be bold as a guideline. Like I said, the article was big enough to split into two articles.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki "The Twice singles discography has already been reviewed by an administrator, which you can be viewed in the log page of that article", nope you are wrong and seem to have mistaken the user that marked it as review as Administrator when user just has new page reviewer rights. In addition, you have not answer my queries yet. Your reasoning of "this article was huge enough to be split into two articles", to me this is your personal preferences and opinion which violated the guidelines provided. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What should be done then? If you merge the BTS albums discography and BTS singles discography, it certainly won't hit over 100KB yet those articles aren't merged. Also editing the article was making my browser slow as the article was already too big, so I made a bold decision to split the article itself.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki While I understand that you like to exercise WP:BOLD, however as per WP:PROSPLIT, "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split" hence the correct procedure should be create split discussion first before going ahead because as mentioned in the quote, this article doesn't meet the requirement to justify splitting it. For BTS discography, a split discussion was proposed before the process was done. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

So what do you propose then? Revert back the article as Twice discography?TheHotwiki (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki Since it's already split and HueMan1 already edited the original Twice discography, the standard move undo procedure back to Twice discography wouldn't be possible and can only be processed through WP:RM/TR. I'm not really objecting to such split however in the future, if you want to split article that doesn't meet the guidelines, please create split discussion before going ahead. I'm not just referring to Twice-related article but all article in Wikipedia that doesn't meet WP:TOOBIG guidelines. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I was under impression that 226,000 bytes was 226KB, which was another reason why I splitted the article without a consensus. I didn't think it was going to be an issue given how lengthy the original article was.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just make sure in the future that you proposed discussion first. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Noted.TheHotwiki (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Repackage of BDZ and &Twice

Is there a reason why the repackage of those albums aren't mentioned in the Reissues section? Reissue and Repackage are basically the same thing. The repackage of BDZ and &Twice didn't have a name change however both came out with a new art cover, and an additional track.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hotwiki Don't see the need for such changes nor inclusion when it's pretty much the same name with repackaged release date already listed below intial version release date. The additional track has been covered by the respective album article itself. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an database, not everything needs to be listed for such minor details. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Nkon21

@Nkon21: Please take a look at featured articles like Taylor Swift singles discography and Lady Gaga discography, and see that those featured articles have the similar captions for the tables. You reducing the captions into fewer words, doesn't benefit this article at all. Also there's no need to put the words such as digital and physical, in abbreviation brackets. Spelling them out completely is completely fine, since those words aren't even wordy. TheHotwiki (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also may I add, @Nkon21:, you should read the tracklist of their compilation albums, half of the tracks in #Twice, #Twice2, #Twice3 and #Twice4 are their Korean songs. You labeling those as Japanese compilation albums is misinformation. TheHotwiki (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say the captions must be worded in that way, just that MOS:ACCESS requires tables to have captions. The specific wording is up to preference; but unnecessarily wordy captions that repeat each and every one of the table column headers is simply redundant and pointless. The trimmed version is less wordier and satisfies the caption requirement succinctly. I honestly don't see a point of having (physical) visible in the first place as its assumed that all sales on an album discography page are for physicals. Regarding your last point, all of the compilation albums were released for the Japanese market, so it is not "misinformation" that I added "Japanese" to the caption. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

These captions have existed for a long time in this article, and no one have an issue with the captions except for you. As for "Japanese" compilation albums - when the article labeled the albums (or singles) as Korean or Japanese (or English), it is directed to the primary language of the album, not the main market of those product. The compilation albums of Twice, consist of Japanese and Korean tracks, and labeling them "Japanese albums" is misrepresentation and misinformation. TheHotwiki (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

no one have an issue with the captions except for you is not a strong argument to use. If an editor feels that there can be an improvement compared to the current version then by all means that editor should WP:BEBOLD and implement those edits; and frankly speaking, wordy captions are simply pointless and I don't see the need for them. On each of Twice's compilation album articles, the lede labels the record as a "Japanese compilation album" which is why I added it to the captions here in the first place. But honestly, I don't care enough about this to make it a big deal. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about you calling those, wordy captions. Those captions are 1 sentences anyway, and not every section has the same caption. As for being specific about calling the compilation albums "Japanese" because they are marketed for Japan. Well then tell me why are the Korean studio albums, not labeled as "South Korean studio albums"? North Korea's official language is Korean as well. TheHotwiki (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Captions should be succinct in matter with only a few words, not reiterate the content of all the table column headers. Sighted readers have eyes and are able to read them, so wordy captions have absolutely zero benefits for either sighted and screen readers. Thus, if they have objectively no benefits then I don't see the problem with trimming them into a more concise manner. If the lede of Twice's compilation articles mention that they are "Japanese", then me adding "Japanese" to the captions here is not "misinformation". ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't edit the Wikipedia article for the compilation albums of Twice, and I don't think they are labeled correctly. Again, if you are pointing out these compilation albums are "Japanese" because they are marketed for Japan, then why are the Korean studio albums not labeled as "South Korean", especially a country like North Korea (which has Korean as their official language) don't even get music releases from Twice. As for those captions, if featured articles like Taylor Swift singles discography and Lady Gaga discography which went to extensive article reviews are fine having similar captions, then it shouldn't be a problem here as well. TheHotwiki (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter of there are other tracks that are in Korean or English or what not because the group's company still marketed those compilation albums as "Japanese" and other sources such as [5], [6], [7], so they are labeled correctly in the lede. Just don't call something "misinformation" when it is not. As I mentioned before, I don't care enough about this to make it a big deal and the caption can remain as is, so this is my last reply on this matter. There is no one at FAC that requires these captions to be worded in this exact way as it's up to preference. If there are no objective benefits to keeping wordy captions, then trimming them into a concise matter is objectively an improvement. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you trimming the captions down to just "List of ____ by Twice" is an improvement, and I see it as a major issue. Again, you need to look at featured articles I've mentioned, to see what a good discography Wikipedia article looks like. TheHotwiki (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Less redundancy is objectively an improvement as there is zero benefits of captions that reiterate every table column header; I don't see how concise captions are not an improvement over pointless redundant ones. I don't know how familiar you are with FLCs, but please point to me where an editor as suggested that all captions should have that specific wording. As somebody who has promoted several FLCs myself, I have not seen any suggestion anywhere from any editor that all table captions have to be exactly the same or they must reiterate each column. Therefore, I don't see a problem with making them less redundant. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with your changes. Featured Wikipedia discography articles didn't have a problem with the same captions that this article has. Leave them be. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

FLCs never had a problem with adding captions that are more concise, and you have not really offered any reasons why keeping these wordy, redundant captions are a net-benefit to the article aside from WP:OTHER. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I already expressed my disagreement with your changes. So please respect that. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)