User talk:Random86/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Random86. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sections

I did not know I was not allowed to edit within another editors sections. Would you care to tell me how I would edit and address another editors article by section?

Mikepellerin^talk 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mikepellerin, you have to put your post underneath theirs and use indentation (see WP:TPG). Your reply is still not formatted correctly. You are quoting another user without making it clear that's what you are doing, and you don't need to sign the post that many times. The way you attack Shinyang-i is also not appropriate. There is nothing wrong with having a centralized discussion instead of having the exact same discussion on every talk page, which has been explained to you multiple times. --Random86 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I've read red link rules and it doesn't say you must make an article first for something to be included on a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamaraqua (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Aquamaraqua Next time add your post to the bottom, and don't forget to sign your post (see WP:TPG). According to Drmies, "consensus is that only bands with articles get an entry: no redlinks. If you want to add a band, write the article first." --Random86 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Random86 My mistake. I usually do sign my posts. Could we please elaborate on why articles need to be written first? Perhaps start a discussion on this? It's not breaking Wiki rules if there are a limited amount of red-links in a list and as long as they have viable sources to go with them. Aquamaraqua (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Aquamaraqua The most obvious reason is to prevent edit wars, because if some redlinks are added other editors might think they can add every single idol group to the list. However, a few redlinks to bands that are actually notable might be okay. If A.Kor meets the WP:GNG, you can trying adding it back to the list. But, writing "Do not remove" in the edit summary isn't the way to go, and you need to format the references correctly. --Random86 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

What is your List of number-one hits of 2015 (South Korea) article based on?

First of all what you listed was the Gaon Download Chart not the Gaon Digital Chart. Both are two different things. Number 1 hits should be based on the Gaon Digital Chart. I see you say it's based on Gaon but Gaon has not released the 141228 through 150103 list yet. Therefore why are you assuming that EXID is #1?

EXID having a download amount of 67k has not been released yet either. Silvermoonlight14 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Silvermoonlight14 The ranking is based on the Gaon Digital Chart, which you can look at here. To see the download chart, replace the word in the url. It always takes Gaon a while to add the links to their website. --Random86 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit 'war'

How about you take care of the issue? Are EP's supposed to be listed on sites or not? I usually just see it on Kpop sites. --46.114.161.116 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There might be a rule somewhere, but I can't find one. You should start a discussion on Talk:Shinee and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture. --Random86 (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced musical groups

Just happened to stop by a couple of articles like these "Bulldog Mansion" and "Bye Bye Sea". There are not even one citation. What do we do with them? Can we AFD?--TerryAlex (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TerryAlex, I would try AfD. If they are notable, someone can add references etc. --Random86 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas?

Just today I found more new articles for series that haven't aired yet, a kpop group that hasn't debuted yet, and a kpop group member with no trace of notability.

I don't get it. Isn't there some way to keep this stuff from being created in the first place? Except in rare cases, how can something that hasn't happened yet be notable? How can someone who just hit the scene already be notable? How can everything in kpop be deemed article-worthy just for merely existing? That stupid TVXQ tour that isn't even scheduled to start until late February hasn't been successfully AFD'd yet. When I started assessing mostly-new articles for WP:KOREA, I wound up putting a "may not be notable" tag on EVERY one of them. They were mostly song articles, maybe a few EPs. (I finally switched to assessing only list-type articles because I was so irritated.) In your experience, has it always been like this or is it getting worse? Can you think of anything that can be done to stem this never-ending flow of stuff that should never have been made in the first place? AFDing is tiresome and all the fankids just show up and say "it can be made better!" and save it from deletion (then of course never improve it). I'm just...like...ugh. Okay, rant over. Any helpful tips appreciated. LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i: I don't know what to tell you, but it's frustrating for sure. I would have redirected G-Friend, but there is nowhere to redirect it since the agency doesn't have an article. I've been editing K-pop articles for less than a year, but I think it's been like this for a while. AfDs would go faster if more people participated. I wish I had a real answer! By the way, I recommend enabling Twinkle, as it makes routine tasks much easier. --Random86 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look at Twinkle - thanks for the recommendation. At first it's been good doing things by hand, for the experience, ya know? I, too, wish more would participate in the AFDs. I always delsort them to the Korea-related discussions and I see most of them get listed under many other relevant topics, too. Maybe editors outside kpop think they aren't knowledgeable enough? (it's not rocket science - reading most the articles shows they are deletion-worthy) Sometimes when I see a "new person" who seems knowledgeable about WP policy make a comment on one, I'll invite them to peruse more of them but it never seems to lead anywhere. And I'm so sick of things getting relisted over and over. There are so, so, so many articles particularly on songs that just shouldn't exist. There is an expectation by too many editors that every new thing - new group, new album, new song, new EP, new tour - deserves an article the instant it materializes - or even before. When I look at things that occurred before, say, 2011ish, there is a lot less of that. For instance, TVXQ's early tours were major breakthroughs. Their first Japan tours were backbreaking events that made all of the easy success in Japan all these nobodies enjoy now possible. The reprise of their "Mirotic" concerts in Seoul - held a few months after the original "Mirotic" concerts - were something that had never happened before. It was unheard of, a huge deal, there was enormous press about it, and opened the door for every random kpop group to throw successful concerts in Korea. Talk about notable. Kpop concerts used to be downright rare in Korea only a few yeas ago. Do any TVXQ tours from during their real landmark period (pre-2009, when there were 5 members) have any articles? Nope. But every time a random girl group in booty shorts farts on stage an article shows up here. Ugh ugh ugh. I'm sorry, I'm just so frustrated with...everything, I guess. The wikiproject page is kinda useless as there are too many people trying to derail discussion and it never seems like any conclusions get reached. All that talk about reliable sources and has the list been changed at all? Nope. All the articles still use the crap sources, and more crap sources pop up on a daily basis (every fankid wants to be a kpop fandom star and makes their own damn blog). All we know from any of those discussions is that dumb people exist. LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheong Yein photos

It doesn't surprise me that I've goofed up again as a new (and learning) Wiki contributer. I read Tumblr's policies on copying photos and thought they would be available for use. I certainly don't want to infringe on any copyrights.

I guess I will just revert the article back to the way it was. My only intention with my edits and photos was to help the article from being deleted. I am not affiliated with this girl Cheong Yein or her group in any way. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael W. Parker The vast majority of images on the internet cannot be used on Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:IUP. --Random86 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I will read it and conform to the rules. I don't like those "speedy deletion" notices! They are alarming. :-)--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Members' names

For those that don't have their own articles, what should we do when the stage name is different than the real name? Saw Got7 got reverted so...--TerryAlex (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

butts in* I leave out the stage name hangul and put the real name plus hangul in parentheses. And for people whose "stage name" is just their given name, I put their entire real name instead. And yeah, stuff is getting reverted right left and center, just like everything does all the time. I'm going through removing all the stupid fan-run awards from articles, just like I did about two weeks ago. I'm at the point I think Wikipedia should just delete every kpop article and not allow them to be recreated. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If I edit an article, I immediately put it on my watchlist. So I get notified right away if the edits get reverted.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Me too, but a lot of times I just look at the most recent edit, which might be something innocuous-looking, with the bad stuff a few edits back. It's tiring doing the same tasks over and over again. And the awards are all in those hard-to-edit tables. Ugh. LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You know you can restore an old revision in one click using Twinkle, right? If there happens to be a revision by other editors in between (and they are constructive edits that we simply don't want to revert), then just go to the last revision that you need in "View History", go to "Edit Source" and copy and paste "only the portion" that you need to restore. That way you don't have to go through each (let's say, awards) again.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

TerryAlex, I just re-did Got7. Their stage names are not really Korean names, so the Hangul probably doesn't need to be there. Is that what you were asking? --Random86 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

People are already re-adding hangul for stage names, even when the stage name is the same as the person's given name or when the name is not Korean. I don't get it, English Wikipedia is not a list of hangul. Kpop articles need a very detailed MOS, all in one place. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I recently fell in love with my user page ;D. Have a good night, you two!--TerryAlex (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TerryAlex, those are good quotes! Did you write them yourself? :) --Random86 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not, they are written by a very famous Zen master. :) --TerryAlex (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i, where is that happening? I must not have all of those pages on my watch list. I did see things got added to Nine Muses. --Random86 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember 4L, off the top of my head. 100%, but that was minor. I know there have been others but can't remember them now; it's been too many edits ago, ha ha. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i Some stage names are Korean names (like 4L's Yeseul), so it might be all right to include the hangul. Chiyako92 was using confusing formatting, but I changed Nine Muses to be more understandable. What do you think? --Random86 (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I still say no because it will go out of control and they WILL start adding back hangul for every other thing too. I don't think WP should be obligated to catalog all of that information; if they wanna know that badly they can go learn hangul themselves. :P Of course, if they write some prose with some actual information, hangul for stage names can flow naturally into the prose. But for lists, I'd be very, very hesitant to start adding anything to them at all. It's not so much the problem with the hangul itself, as the fact it will go out of control soon and we'll have tables again. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-iThere really isn't anything else to add hangul to, is there? I see what you mean though. Lists can't have that much information on them. That's what prose is for. --Random86 (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I really wonder how many editors can read the Hangul themselves. Anyways, I was wondering if we can redo the table for "Apeace", because that pink color kinda hurts my eyes. Anyways, good night again!--TerryAlex (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

Do you know what happened on the G-Friend page? I tried to go to an earlier version of just the diff I was looking at (so I wouldn't have to un-do the table by hand again), but when I went to that earlier version, it seemed to undo other edits people had made since then. So I undid my undo. I was told there is a way to just undo a desired portion of a page with Twinkle, but I couldn't find anything like that. Do you have any clue what happened or how to do it right? Shinyang-i (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Use the "Compare selected revisions".--TerryAlex (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominate "Jessica & Krystal" too

I helped with editing that article because I saw how bad the previous articles were, but now I think that episode summary is pointless, too. I've been contemplating about this for a while.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the other shows listed here? I didn't nominate the ones that had some sources because I wasn't sure, but I can make a second batch nomination. Shinyang-i? --Random86 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have to make the comparison to the songs/albums articles, "Episode summary" is like "Music Video", while the rest are insignificant announcements. I've been thinking about this, but was not sure how to approach it either.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I think getting rid of all those mini-series articles is a good thing. When they first air, people think it's a big deal but a little time reveals there's really just not much to say about them. Bundling them seems like a good idea also, as none are significantly different from each other to really be judged much differently, I'd think.

While I've got your ears, I thought I'd let you know that I've proposed a bunch of song merges to their EP or album articles. In all cases, both the source and target articles are pretty small and can only benefit by being merged, IMO. They include both hit songs and album tracks, since they're all the same in the end. It's my first time doing merger proposals. Do you think this was a smart way to approach it? I just didn't think the AFDs would go well (not enough comments, people thinking we're hating on kpop, etc). Let me know if you have any advice. There's a list of target articles linked on my user page, if you care to browse. Thanks, as always! Shinyang-i (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging album/song to me is a good idea. I wanted to do that and even attempted to (unsuccessfully) once. Even the most famous title track does not need a separate article, not because I don't like the song, but it contains way too little, as well as too-much overlapped info with the album. Even some of the info has already been mentioned in the main artists' article, too. The thing I'm confused of is how to merge both the album and song charts in a way that does not make them look confusing.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been pondering it too, but honestly most of the song's charts are already covered on the album article usually. They just list the main one or two Gaon charts instead of all the little insignificant ones. In a month's time, no one will care how a song fared on Gaon's background music chart. I'm gonna just cross that bridge when the time comes and ask for lots of advice. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I might need help with merging Hello Baby since I've only seen a few episodes of the show. I saw the song/album merge proposals and I will go over them later. This is a good solution for some of the permanent stub articles. I do think it might be hard to merge songs that were also released as Japanese singles, because that wouldn't easily merge into the Korean album page. --Random86 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i I've read WP:CHART, and it says single-vendor charts are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles. Do you think this applies to things like "The song was number 1 on eight online music charts"? This is very common on K-pop pages. The online charts are all single-vendor charts, right? Also, according to WP:CHARTMATH, the Gaon download, streaming and background music charts should not be used because they are components of the digital (singles) chart. I think the Gaon mobile chart used to be a component as well. So, none of them need to be mentioned. --Random86 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time with WP:CHART, it's a favorite of mine, ha ha. Online charts are 100% not allowed in tables, and are generally unsuitable for discussion in an article unless something notable happens with one of the charts for some reason. There might be instances where mentioning an online chart could be meaningful, but just to say "it went to number one on blah, blah, and blah charts", no. Get rid of it. Also delete any references to Hanteo for anything released 2009 or after. Just cite WP:CHARTS, that's what I do. I am a lot less understanding of the various components of the Gaon chart and what's included in what. If what you're saying is true, then they also cannot be listed. We'd need sources to establish it. Maybe a discussion at WP:CHARTS would be helpful? I've posted there before. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For the Gaon Digital Chart, here's what the website says, "순위집계 : 스트리밍, 다운로드, BGM 판매량에 가중치를 부여하여 집계". I don't speak Korean but the meaning is clear via Bing Translator. I saw your sandbox. :) I have a few quibbles with it, but it is excellent overall. It would be great if something like this could actually become an official guideline. --Random86 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right. My Korean is horrible and gets more so every day, but yes. I'm going to mention it at WP:CHARTS so they can add it. That's not the kind of thing editors will know on their own. Good job! There's a talk page for the sandbox so please comment there, if you like. I just wrote down the stuff I could think of thus far and am trying to go back and link back to the relevant larger policies. Certain portions may make sense only in my own mind, so yes, comments are needed and welcomed. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So, only Gaon's digital chart (and Oricon's for Japanese release) should be adequate? No on-the-side Gaon charts such as streaming, BGM, etc right?--TerryAlex (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely no BGM, streaming, etc. Noraebang and ringtone are not aggregated in digital, though, so I've inquired at WP:CHARTS about them. RIAJ is okay for Japan too, but it's for certifications not exact sales numbers. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jonghyun's songs chart, for example, should be just this then

chart

Song	Peak chart position
	KOR
	Gaon Chart
"Déjà-Boo"	1
"Crazy (Guilty Pleasure)"	5
"Love Belt"	16
"할렐루야 (Hallelujah)"	27
"일인극 (MONO-Drama)"	28
"시간이 늦었어 (Beautiful Tonight)"	29
"NEON"	37

--TerryAlex (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DoB

I've been thinking about this, DoB might be unnecessary on groups' articles, but needs to be mentioned on individual artists' (whether there is a "reliable" source for it or not). I mean, I think biography does need a birthdate, doesn't it? But I guess the lack of sources is a headache. Just a thought. --TerryAlex (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think the company websites are unreliable sources for birth dates. I also don't have a problem with birth dates being on group articles. I guess you saw my noticeboard post? So far one person agrees with Drmies, and another person doesn't. Sigh... --Random86 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For individual biographies a birthdate is ok, but it needs RS. Unreliable sources are not acceptable anywhere, and more so in a BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a book on Google that has birthdates for GG, 2NE1, After School, Wonder Girls, etc. Can this be used? 1--TerryAlex (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good find. Looks like a good source. Thank you Terry. I converted it to a ref for you: <ref name="Russell2014">{{cite book|author=Mark Russell|title=K-Pop Now!: The Korean Music Revolution|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=etDZAwAAQBAJ|date=29 April 2014|publisher=Tuttle Publishing|isbn=978-1-4629-1411-1}}</ref>- only thing missing is the page numbers. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. I will take care of this later.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good find, TerryAlex. The author most likely got the birth dates from the companies though. He talks about getting information from the companies on his blog. Dr.K., is the book considered more reliable than the websites? --Random86 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. In a situation like this there is no answer that can please everyone. On one level, it can be considered original research to second-guess what apparently is a reliable source from a reputable publisher. On another level, if the origin of the information is tainted, then the information may be deemed unreliable. But that is true for any sources, not only K-pop-related. At the end of the day, it's a judgment call and a matter of consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So we can't use the book either? I got the exact page numbers for all the groups though. Too bad if it cannot be used.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I just read the blog and the author goes on about how the companies had an input on what he could include in the book. That does make it sound a little shaky as far as the reliability of the source goes. Personally, I still think that it can be used in the individual articles. As long as we don't overdo it by adding it to group articles, it should be ok imo. But I'm not too strong on that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I only want to add it to the individual articles of course, because I think individual biography does need a birthdate. But the question is its reliability. What do you think Random86?--TerryAlex (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the companies are generally unreliable for birth dates, so of course I am fine with the book as well. :) I've been out of town lately so I haven't been on here much. --Random86 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think we should add the book ref? Since Dr. K. does not seem to have any objections, I can do it later.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good idea. Did you get the page numbers for all the groups that had birth dates listed? --Random86 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, I do.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sistar

Regarding sistar : I realised the 'members' column/section had been taken down. I was thinking if someone could put it back, Sistar members. Please help,thanks MindyChua (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

MindyChua, all the Sistar members have their own articles so the member section was not necessary. --Random86 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Will you be interested?

Hi Random86, as you know that all Apink's individual member article has been redirected. However I've noticed that some editors including me still think Son Naeun is notable to have her own page even though I agree that her old article need improvement. So I wonder if you're interested to work together to help improve her article so we can put her individual page back again.

One more thing, I've notice that you changed the formatting for Apink members. May I know the reason? Are there any existing standard available on this that we have to follow? I think without the box, the format is a bit messy and as you can see it caused the next section "discography" to move up into member's information. How about if we use borderless table like this? I've also want to include information for the ex member hang yoo kyung under list of member. I've put the draft on the link above too. Thank you Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a long to-do list of things I want to do on Wikipedia and limited time to do it, so I don't know how much time I would have for re-doing Son Naeun's article. If you need help with something specific I will try to help.

The borderless tables look better, but I still don't like it. Prose isn't supposed to go in tables, and there is too much white space. Feel free to add Hong Yoo-kyung. I am currently going through the references and I plan to do a complete copy edit of the article. Who knows, maybe A Pink can become a GA one of these days. :) --Random86 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There are just too many pictures on A Pink right now, I think it's best to cut down to only a couple of pictures.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW Random86, do you think you can rephrase Yoona's "Public image" section (especially the first paragraph) in any better way? I want to highlight some of her important aspects, but it's hard to see if there is anything "wrong" with it when I am the one who writes it myself. And I know my wordings are not the best. Thanks :)--TerryAlex (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I went over the section. Let me know if I removed something important. I wasn't sure about the "center spot" sentence so I changed it to what I thought the references said. --Random86 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually just see if there is anything else in the article that needs to be rephrased or taken out. :) I'm generally pretty satisfied with the "content" right now, but like I said when you write it (and read it multiple times) yourself, you can't seem to see if there is anything wrong :). Still learning how to write these articles properly, and it's so time-consuming. Thanks buddy.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

Concerning the revert you did to my edit of 2PM on 2/1/2015 MOS:DATERET, as you quoted states: Retaining existing format: If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".''

The first edit, ie, creation, of the page [1] clearly shows that the original editor used mm/dd/yyyy format so it must be adhered to as is stated in the second sentence of the quote I showed you above.

Also MOS:DATEFORMAT clearly shows that mm/dd/yyyy is an acceptable format.

Thank you Mikepellerin^talk 15:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mikepellerin, the date format has been dmy on 2PM since at least November 2012 according to the template (Template:Use dmy dates) that was there. There is no reason to change it now. --Random86 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I went through all of 2PM's history for November 2012, and did not see any template that referenced DMY as being the standard dating format. Would you care to provide a clickable reference so myself and others may see what you are alluding to? Thank you. Mikepellerin^talk 04:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at this version, you can see the template there (It looks like this: {{Use dmy dates|date=November 2012}}). The template is still in the article, but it says February 2015 now because I ran the script recently to catch a few dates that didn't match the format. Basically, the date format in the article has been stable for more than two years so it shouldn't be changed now without a good reason. --Random86 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

Hi. A Pink reads much better now, I think. I wondered if you might be willing to take a look at the Twitter refs at Ariana Grande. Ideally, it would be great if someone could replace the Twitter refs with more reliable sources. But if that is not possible, then at least the refs should be formatted correctly. I put an example of the correct format on her Talk page, but another editor reverts any change that I make to the formatting, so I can't do it myself. If you would be willing to look for more reliable sources, that would be great. But even if you don't have time, could you fix the format of the Twitter refs? Thanks for any help! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggested some alternate sources for Ariana Grande on the talk page, but I don't know if they are good enough. Thank you for going over A Pink; it was great to have the perspective another editor. --Random86 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I used 3 of the 4. Well done. Let me know if you need copy editing help, or a second pair of eyes somewhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Surname

So should we address the artists using last names instead of first names now? Honestly though, when I read about a Western artist, I immediately think of their last names, but calling someone Kim, Park, or Lee just does not feel the same. (:p) Actually I just read the "Country-specific usage", and it talks about the preference to use first names for Thai and Vietnamese. I think the majority of Asians might apply too?--TerryAlex (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It probably depends of whether they have stage names or not, or are known by just their given names. I'm not familiar with all groups, but A Pink do not use stage names so that is why MOS:SURNAME applies. Hyuna goes by just Hyuna professionally so she doesn't need to be referred to as Kim. In some cases it might be hard to determine whether a K-pop singer is known by their given name or their whole name. I dunno, it's complicated. (I don't think Korea is like Thailand or Vietnam though. Koreans seem to use their whole names most often, from what I've noticed) --Random86 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue too. R86 is right, Koreans use full names most of the time when speaking to or about each other, but they are referred to by surname in English media, so I'd think that would be the norm on Wikipedia. In most circumstances outside kpop, it would be rude to call an adult by only their given name in Korea. I think in a person's own article, using the surname is nearly always proper, but to do so in a group article could cause chaos because of the common-ness of most names. However I would like to see increasing use of artists' full names when introduced in, say, album articles, as they are professional adults and deserve respect as such. ("Krystal Jung wrote the lyrics for the song" instead of "Krystal wrote..."). In my merge-o-rama I've been trying to do that as I go along. I'd like to see a move toward articles being titled by full names, even for Hyuna, even though she uses only her given name professionally. Eric Mun and Andy Lee go by their given names only in Korea, but because of the commonness of their names they are titled by their full names on enwiki. Likewise, there are other notable Hyunas without a doubt (f'r instance, Heather Cho is named Hyuna and is called such in Korea; obviously she should be called Heather on enwiki but what if she wasn't? already another notable Hyuna appears). Right now it's not an issue, but as notable Korean coverage increases, there will likely be more name duplications. It's also a matter of respect to me, most of these people using only their given names don't have unique names like, say, Beyonce, and most are not truly famous by just that name without their group name being appended (Hyuna probably is). Anyway, carry on! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you!

I wanted to say thank you to you and @TerryAlex: for the old Gaon chart resources and the tips on archiving & citing archives. I've already used them a ton! Right now I seriously have like 10 links to look up on old charts for just one article. You've made my work much easier! Shinyang-i (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just glad all the monthly albums charts were archived. A lot of the old weekly digital charts (with #101-200) are apparently lost forever. --Random86 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh, the album sales are back! I guess they were temporarily removed during the site update. --Random86 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you need me on anything, let me know. I think you two are doing a great job and don't want to ruin it. What I've been doing lately is reading biographies on Wikipedia, and contemplating on how to write a good article. Will try to help merge album articles later :)--TerryAlex (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! If you ever want to try to raise Girls' Generation to GA status I will help with that. K-pop needs more GAs to be good examples, and it's something I want to try eventually. --Random86 (talk)

I'm so sick of merging song articles, zzzzzzzzzz~ There are still sooooo many to go, though. I'm starting to meet opposition by people who think songs promoted on their own shouldn't be merged, or think that a song released in Japanese and Korean shouldn't be merged. I don't know how to respond really. I just want to break this norm of every new song getting an article, and the only way to do that is by merging the majority of existing song articles. 2NE1, TVXQ, I don't even know how to begin to tackle those. I really want to work on articles I care about, LOL. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your responses made sense to me. :) You can always take a break from merging and work on something else. --Random86 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

R86, you probably can tell that I do have a list of articles that I'm looking at, but I just don't know in which order I should go for. It's just a time-consuming process. And I'm still learning how to do this properly. Will need a lot of help from you, I'm sure. I'm still fixing a particular article right now.--TerryAlex (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey R86, what do you think are the problems with the current GG's article right now? I want to start looking at it, so want to see if you can pin point any problems you see.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This version of the article had a GA review in May 2012 (Talk:Girls' Generation/GA1). I think the article is better than it was then. The prose is better, but probably still needs improvement. Some of the refs need improvement and there are still dead links. I can fix some of those. The Artistry section needs improvement, and the Philanthropy section has short paragraphs that don't flow well.

About the references, a lot of them have the domain as the work/publisher instead of the name of the newspaper/website. For example, Eto.co.kr instead of Economy Today (work). Some of the references don't include the name of the work or publisher, so you have to mouse over it to tell (or click the link if it's from Naver/Nate). I don't know if this matters of not, but I've noticed you don't use citation templates, and a lot of references in the article use them. Citation templates are not required but I think they are easier to edit. :) In general, it would be a good idea to go through all the references, format them correctly (including date, author, work/publisher, etc.), and make sure a better reference isn't available (e.g. an English reference is better than Korean, and a third-party source is better than a primary source most of the time). Random86 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I know the prose needs a lot of improvement. What I've been doing lately is reading old news articles (8 years worth of stuff to read about) and thinking of the best way to piece all the info together. That's why I have been pretty "quiet" these days (I have to apologize for that...btw, I've finished adding all the dob citations). :) Just prefer to work "within the sandbox" for now. If you need anything, message me, of course :). About the references, I know I don't use the citation template, when I first started editing on Wikipedia, I learned that format from somewhere and thought the format looks good and is easier to remember. :) Will try to change it to the standard format later, but because the bigger issue is the article(s) themselves, so that is what I'm doing. I know I will bother you from time to time. --TerryAlex (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work, @TerryAlex:. I've been going through 17 years' worth of stuff to try to improve the article for Shinhwa and all its members. It's really overwhelming. I'm doing some discography work right now, which is probably the easiest and yet it's so exhausting. Their new album is about to come out, though, and this is my way of "celebrating" ha ha~ I also second R86's opinion about citation templates - I find them much easier to edit or add info (such as an archive) to. Good luck with the Girls' Generation article. :) A couple of questions for either of you guys:

Where is the best place to include a list of songs a person has composed for himself, for his own group, and for other artists?
I can't figure out the best place for collaborations/featurings/compilation contributions. Seems they don't go on discographies(?). Is that where one of those "songs recorded by Joe Blow" articles come in?
Am I correct that there are no records of sales/charts in Korea from October 2008 (end of the RIAK) to the beginning of 2010 (beginning of Gaon)?

Thanks! :D Shinyang-i (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mariah Carey singles discography, Beyoncé discography and other featured lists include collaborations and featurings, and it seems normal to include those. What are the compilation contributions? Random86 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the featuring being included within the Discography too. Off-topic, first Kpop song that I ever listened to was BoA - No.1, and the second song was probably Shinhwa - I pray for you or Perfect Man LOL. That was how I started learning about Kpop. I can still remember that the English rap by Eric did not make any sense :). Time goes by really fast.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks for the info. The discogs i looked at had none of that so I guess I just didn't look enough! :D And ha ha about Eric's rap. Eric is fluent in English but when the market is Korea some weird-ass Konglish seems to show up! IP4U and PM are actually two of the only songs he didn't write the raps for. I'd still like to tie him down and do unmentionable things to him, regardless of his rap corniness levels. :D The Shinhwa article albums are all just ... baaad. I added some info to them, fixed dead chart links, but have yet to actually add or clean up prose. That's where the tons of research comes in. One members' page hasn't been updated (the prose) since 2012, looks like. Sigh. How can they be so popular and yet so neglected? *sniffle* (I think the first song I heard was by Lee Jung-hyun.) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: The hardest part of writing biography is that you don't just say "She/He/They released this. They then released that", but you gotta demonstrate someone's growth as an artist/person. Their character. Their impact. That is why this is very time-consuming, because you gotta figure out a way to put everything together in a way that makes sense.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. Writing good biographies takes a lot of thought and time. Random86 (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?--TerryAlex (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if I can. :) Random86 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I recently stumbled upon a good article on Yoona and attempted to rewrite the article Original article Translation. It's not the best, but I think something like this would sound better (my sandbox). I need you to take a look, rephrase, trim (or add) anything trivial or wordy, and make the wordings more flowing if you can. I can't think anymore :). Edit my sandbox and do whatever you want.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a lot better now. What do you think? That was a good article you found. You should probably find something about the negative reviews for her acting in Cinderella Man; since it's mentioned later on in one of the positive reviews. Random86 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you made the article looks so much cleaner and neat. Do you think there is anything else that can be utilized? Don't want to waste such a good article. Honestly, as I read through stuff, there are a lot of things that can be talked about, but when it comes to phrasing and putting things together, I know I do a really bad job. Glad to have you around to help with the pruning. :) I'll edit the changes to her article later and will continue to look for "Cinderella Man". GG's article will probably the easiest (because there are tons of info), but also the hardest to revise. :) I'm still hunting down news articles right now, don't want the info to be lost with the sands of time.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

TerryAlex: One thing I would possibly add is that Shim Jae-won considered her the best female dancer in SM. Random86 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sistar discography

SISTAR discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyChua (talk • contribs) 08:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@MindyChua: Was this post a mistake, or do you need help with something? --Random86 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @random86. Why did you removed Sistar discography(mini albums,singles). Other groups as well. Can you restore them back? You put in the studio albums only,where are the eps and singles? I suppose discography doesn't define full length albums only. It would be better if the ep and singles are included as well.MindyChua (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@MindyChua:, I left only studio albums because that is how discography sections are done on music articles. Look at the articles of Western singers and bands and you will see what I mean. This was developed through consensus years ago but K-pop articles weren't conforming to convention. To see the rest of the discography, click the link to the discography article (e.g. Sistar discography). --Random86 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kpop and western are two different things. Not necessarily everything have to be in western style,isn't it? I just feel that the EPs and singles should be included so people can see which are the main albums released/produced overall. Western singers normally release full length albums,but kpop is different. Once in a while,they release a song,or a few. I get what you mean but I think you shouldn't change so many groups' discography. Thanks MindyChua (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help to 'restore' back the 'members' section in Sistar page? It was there last time but not anymore. Members section can be seen in Apink,secret,girls day pages etc. Thanks a lot! MindyChua (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I already answered this question at User talk:Random86/Archive 2#Sistar. --Random86 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DC Inside

I saw news talking about polls being conducted by this site. Is there any notability to this? Just wondering.

By the way, just in case if you want to archive any Naver links, use webcitation because archive.org will not archive it.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this kind of thing? It doesn't look notable to me, but I could be wrong. Thanks for the tip on webcitation. It's very easy to use with the bookmarklet. --Random86 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable either, but since I sometimes saw it being mentioned. So wanna know for sure. :) There is a Wiki article for it, that was why it caught my attention.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DC Inside itself is notable, but I don't think stuff like forum beauty polls are notable for biographies. :) --Random86 (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I can never use a Kpopstarz link as a reference, because everytime I open one, there seems like a million pop-ups. That site is even worse than Allkpop and Soompi in my opinion. --TerryAlex (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I never see pop-ups on any of those sites because I have Adblock Plus. You should try it. :) --Random86 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Date-fixing script

Earlier on this page I saw you mention a date-fixing script you've used before. I looked through the Wikipedia tools and didn't see anything like that. Can you tell me more? I've been merging and though I try to be consistent, I'm sure the dates on the finished products are formatted every-which-way. A script to make them all consistent would be helpful. No rush~ Shinyang-i (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It can be found at WP:MOSNUMscript. :) --Random86 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CL (singer)‎

Hi. Thanks for that revert. I didn't revert it back far enough. Onel5969 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. That page has to be watched closely because the picture is changed often. --Random86 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangtan Boys discography

Random, there is no need for a separate discography. Everything fits in the main article: see Wikipedia:Article size. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I just merged them. I see now that other articles should be merged as well. --Random86 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Will you do this merge?

Do you mind taking care of a simple merge for me, at your leisure? It's at the top of I AM.. I'd prefer not to go into my reasons for not doing it myself, but I know you know SM Ent stuff so you should be perfectly qualified to take care of it. I'd appreciate it! =D Shinyang-i (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just redirected the page, because there was nothing to merge. :) --Random86 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah I'm running into that a lot. I thought I still had to go through the merging process, though. Oh well, thank you! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The user Supreme Boy

He is also under a sock puppet investigation, might want to look into it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokjin92 Wgolf (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

f(x) templates merge

Hi, Random86. Can you complete the merge of {{f(x) singles}} into {{f(x)}}? Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I would, but I don't know how. Random86 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to merge any of the content of {{f(x) singles}} into {{f(x)}}? Alakzi (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I added the songs from {{f(x) singles}} to {{f(x)}}, but I don't know what to do next. Random86 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all the transclusions of {{f(x) singles}}, so we can just delete it now. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Random86. Same with {{Secret singles}} when you've got time. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

jessica forced out of snsd

do you even have banning powers to constantly threaten me? anyhow, i don't know if you're new to reading, but there shouldn't be a consensus to a word that jessica herself used on her personal social media, it's called misquoting. binvoiler (talk) 04:39, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

@Binvoiler: You already added Jessica's point of view to the article, and she did not use the phrase "kicked out" according to the sources posted. She said "I am being forced out", so if you would like that wording to be included in the article, start a discussion on the article's talk page. If you continue edit warring you will be reported to WP:AN3. Random86 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Random86: how is it even debatable to use what she indeed said or a clearly softer word to diminish the image damage of the rest of the group? and it wasn't even presented as factual, just a quote from social media.

Like I said before, she did not use the phrase "kicked out". It was not presented as a quote because there were no quotation marks. Anyway, I am not going to argue with you here. Please start a discussion on Talk:Jessica Jung if you want something changed. Random86 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you

for correcting my deletes of the music videos from the discography. It is very hard to make heads or tales of the standards between filmography/ videography/ discography but I realized you were right that when no separate article exists for an artist videography or filmography the standard practice is to but them in the discography. Thank you again. Peachywink (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) We all make mistakes here and there. Random86 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)