Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Wikimania 2020

Bangkok, Thailand – 2020-08-05

End (optional)

Local Time ()

RfC: Including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: An article about notable Korean musicians can include a section listing concerts/tours that meet the guidelines for notability.
There appears to be some other issue in this discussion, but I can't figure out exactly what it was. In any case, this discussion has come to a natural end so this RfC should be closed. -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Should a section listing concerts/tours be included in articles about notable Korean musicians?

(NOTE: This only refers to major performances where the musician is the headline act, not where they just perform a few songs along with many other musicians.)

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's recommendation to “ask for help at the relevant WikiProject”,[1] I would be interested to read the views of this group to see if there's a consensus here, as not all users appear to have the same understanding of this issue. To keep the discussion professional, please cite sources to support statements, as I've tried to do below. This helps focus on the goal of group collaboration based on factual evidence, rather than just individual opinion.

To put this issue into context, a section for concerts/tours is included in articles about American musicians (such as Mariah Carey[2] and Michael Jackson,[3] which are both classified as Featured Articles), as well as some articles about Korean musicians (such as Girls' Generation,[4] which is classified as a Good Article).

Wikipedia seems to confirm that these comparison articles avoid fluff and set precedents:

“A good article...addresses the main aspects of the topic...without going into unnecessary detail.” [5]

“Featured articles...are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.” [6]

Including this information also seems to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle to “use common sense”.[7] Concert tours and ticket sales are financially important to musicians' careers, often more than music releases and album sales [8].

Finally, there are WikiProject Guidelines that specifically recommend including this information in articles: “Page layout ... Concerts, convention/festival and tours” [9]

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to have a civil discussion here about this issue.[10] [11]

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need an RFC for a standard staple in articles about musicians? ƏXPLICIT 03:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't need one. Unfortunately, another user removed that information from an article, and discussion with that user didn't resolve the situation. Thank you for sharing your view that including concerts/tours is standard in articles about musicians. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as there is a reliable source to support the information then I don’t see why this would be removed. They’re a musician, it’s definitely relevant to the subject. Alex (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. (Please note that featured articles, like those for Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson, don't include sources in the concerts/tours section, and the WikiProject Guidelines don't specify that they're required there either.) Hyuny Bunny (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hyuny Bunny, I have no problem for including this info, as long as the information is reliably sourced. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Taewangkorea, thanks for your feedback. I'm not the editor(s) who added concerts/tours to the article originally, so it's not my own work that I'm defending here. The user who deleted them noted in their Edit Summary, "that these are worth mentioning is questionable", so their decision wasn't based on lack of sourcing. If their edit can be reverted on the grounds that WikiProject Guidelines and this RfC's communal consensus prove that concerts/tours are worth mentioning, then I can try to source them. But it does seem strange to apply higher standards to this article than those used in featured articles. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hyuny Bunny: I don’t necessarily mean they should be sourced in the tour section. Jackson’s tours are all sourced where they’re mentioned throughout the article in prose. As long as it’s sourced somewhere in the article. Alex (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if it wasn't clear that I was only referring to the listing in the concerts/tours section. What you propose makes sense, as it looks odd to add sources to a list format. If that user's edit can be reverted now, then nothing else needs to be done to that section. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hyuny Bunny: Ah sorry for the confusion. I only mentioned it being sourced as I’ve seen edits been made where a tour has been added to a list, but not mentioned and sourced anywhere else in the article. I agree it’s a pretty standard thing for an article regarding a musical act. Alex (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: No problem, and thanks for the information. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Another point to add to the general discussion: Wikipedia's essay on Overzealous Deletion states, “Wikipedia is not about what you like and do not like. An article or section that fully conforms with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion must remain, even if one or a few people do not like it.”[12] The outcome of this discussion could also affect other articles, if that user has made or will make the same deletion elsewhere. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Explicit, thanks again for participating in this RfC. According to Wikipedia's established practice, “guidelines document communal consensus”[13], so would the guidelines that I referenced above help document the communal consensus of WikiProject Korea?[14] And would it be appropriate to close this uncontroversial discussion now?[15] Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• "as long as there is a reliable source to support the information" is pretty relevant, of course--and the K-portals that mostly rehash company PR don't count. In many cases, the "list of tours" or whatever is unverified and questionable, it frequently includes these "showcases", and it seems to be just another way to fill up articles that are written according to templates. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• • @Drmies: Please note that there were some reliable sources to support the information, and it didn't include any "showcases". According to your rationale above, the entire section should not have been deleted by you, and then deleted again by User:Dr.K.. Are you now willing to allow that section to be restored, if reliable sources exist? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Drmies's points entirely. I also add that to list the concerts/tours, these have to satisfy GNG. In other words, I fail to see why a concert or a tour has to be listed if an article about the event does not exist. At a minimum, an article should already exist for an event to be notable enough to be listed. Dr. K. 04:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• • @Dr.K.: Please note that according to Wikipedia, "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" [16] Some sources do exist for concerts/tours, so according to your rationale above, they are notable enough to be listed. According to your rationale, the entire section should not have been deleted by User:Drmies, and then deleted again by you. Are you now willing to allow that section to be restored, if sources exist? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm kind of wondering what the point is of having a list even if the content is verified. If some band goes on tour and plays a dozen shows or whatever in this or that country, that should first and foremost be part of the verified text, the biography if you will. One of the problems here is that we have yet another opportunity for listing and table porn in K-pop articles which, before you know it, is going to be split off into yet another article, creating the supposed need for yet more templates and links in templates, in a domain of articles where the blowing up of factoids supported by PR and fan portals is already rampant. Just look at the article for Kard (band), and their enormously inflated "tours" section, and that for a band that managed to make no albums and sell only 37,000 copies of three EPs. And look at the source for their North American "tour" (four shows in venues of 2,000 sets)--this piece of promotional fluff. So this "verified" really means very little, practically speaking, in that article. Sure, I suppose that PR piece "verifies" something, but it gives no indication that it actually mattered. And this is symptomatic for this domain. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: Your general wondering would be more appropriate to bring up later in another forum, and you would have to respect the many experienced editors who have documented their communal consensus in guidelines and set precedents by making lists a standard practice in featured/good articles.
      • The point of having a list has already been addressed in this RfC – concerts/tours are important to a musician's career, often more than their discography (which also merits a list). Precedents/guidelines/communal consensus all indicate that a list is considered useful for reference purposes, so that the entire text won't have to be searched for that information,
      • The article for Kard isn't a good comparison because the article in question here does not have an enormously inflated tours section, and the band in question did manage to release multiple albums. Nobody is asking for that section to be split off into another article, only that it be returned to the article from which it originally came, to give equal treatment to every musician, regardless of nationality.
      • For everyone's sake, it'd be best to resolve all our old business before the end of the year (UTC), so we can start the new year with a clean slate. That would avoid the need for further escalation of these matters. Any unnecessary delaying tactics will only prove lack of good faith. For the last time, I'm requesting that you respect the communal consensus of the other experienced editors who have contributed to this RfC, drawn up guidelines, and set precedents in other articles. To prove your good faith, please have Dr.K. undo their revert and restore concerts/tours to the article, so I can start seeing to sources. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So for this clean slate, and "everyone's sake", you, with 104 article edits and all this talk, want us to just roll over, without actually addressing a single one of the points I raised, besides saying "this article is different"--which you then want to use to format other articles. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NODEADLINE. If you wanted your RfC to end earlier, you should not have started it so late. Now, you must wait for an uninvolved editor to close it after the full 30 days have elapsed. As far as Drmies telling me to revert myself, it won't happen. We both agree on everything. Also, please, no pinging. It is annoying and useless. I know how to find this talkpage. Dr. K. 03:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies and Dr.K.: I'm not sure where you two are getting this idea that lists of concert tours is an "issue" strictly affecting K-pop. There is a literal WikiProject that offers suggestions to users on how to present the information. There are featured articles and good articles about particular tours, and lists and featured lists that cover all tours by a particular artist. There is no established convention to present the content, so there isn't really "right" or "wrong" way to go about it as long as there are references to back it up. Aside from vilifying K-pop and its audience, are there any actual concerns that justifies removal of said content that doesn't inherently fly in the face of established norms and practices? ƏXPLICIT 07:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Explicit, it sounds as if I am beating my wife continuously. Let's start 2020 with fewer loaded questions. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What Drmies said. Also asking the rhetorical question: Aside from vilifying K-pop and its audience... is insulting. If you think my contributions in this discussion, (or Drmies's for that matter), amount to this denunciation, there is no point in discussing anything further with you unless you retract the loaded statement. And, again, no pinging. If you had read my comments just above you would have seen the previous no pinging request. Dr. K. 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• The answer to the RFC question is obviously yes, but I would add a big but here. Namely, announcements of these concerts should not count as reliable sources that these concerts have actually taken place. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Finding a source

I can't seem to find a good source for Kang Myung-A, a south korean shooter. Can anybody help me? Thanks! Neverbuffed (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Neverbuffed, I am sorry nobody helped you. Maybe try asking at a bigger forum. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kibi Clan Rebellion

QuickTrial (talk · contribs) removed the content of the Kibi Clan Rebellion article, describing it as "pseudohistory presented as fact". I've restored the content, but marked the article with a {{disputed}} header until someone knowledgeable can take a look at this. If it is pseudohistory or myth (perhaps like the Arthurian legends?) its content should probably be marked as such, rather than the whole article deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

BTS (band) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BTS (band) to be moved to BTS. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

IZM reliable?

Is IZM a reliable source? Specifically, there is disagreement on Map of the Soul: 7 as to whether its album review can be included. WP:A/S says to come here for reliable sources concerning k-pop.  Bait30  ^Talk? 16:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: Where is this disagreement regarding its reliability taking place? Based on the page's history, the disagreement stems from its inclusion in the {{Album ratings}} template at the eleventh review, which is generally limited to ten. ƏXPLICIT 09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Explicit: Oh I didn't even notice that there were 11. I guess in this case it doesn't matter. For future reference though, what do you think about IZM's reliability?  Bait30  ^Talk? 16:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: From what I can tell, it's a fine source. The founder appears to be a highly regarded music critic, and IZM has in-house writers as well as contributions from other noted music critics/columnists from time to time. ƏXPLICIT 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

BTS (band) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BTS (band) to be moved to BTS. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Has it been discussed before here?

I was wondering, if/when the two Koreas unify ( a big IFF), what would be the names? Was there a prior discussion? Starzoner (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really the place to speculate on such things. We need reliable sources to write about the subject - the point of Wikiproject Korea is to improve articles related to Korea. Your best bet for anything on this issue would be Korean reunification. Evaders99 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance

There is discussion at Talk:United States Military and prostitution in South Korea about the number of prostitutes in South Korea during the 1950s and 60s. As I don't speak Korean and the format precludes machine translating, could somebody kindly verify (or not) the the ROK Government figures for prostitutes serving the UN/US military were 10,000-30,000 in 1954, 20,000 in 1966 and 13,000-14,000 in 1969 from these sources [17], [18] and [19].

Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

I don't know if anybody has told you about this, but May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and DYK has set aside a special holding area for that. Please see WT:DYK. Also, so far, we just have contributions about Hawaiian Asian culture, and Fililpino Americans. It seems to me that Koreans in America are a sizeable population. Please feel free to participate. If anyone needs help getting started over there, just post a request for help at WT:DYK. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Korean Air Lines Flight 007, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Exceptions To Members Sections

I actually came here because of the Dempagumi.inc members section and how furious I am at the removal of detailed information about the members of the group. I know that they're J-pop and this is about K-pop but the idea of members and the things they represent remains consistent through both cultures. The difference is that as K-pop is vastly more popular in the English speaking world than J-pop is, it's far more well-documented in English. The problem I have arises from something like the Dempagumi.inc member section having its detailed member informatuion removed. As of right now, Wikipedia is one of if not the only place on the English-speaking internet where that detailed information from the member section can even be found. Things like what each member represents in their otaku genre, their color, information about their circumstances, join and graduation dates, etc. That information only exists right here in that former revision of that Wiki.

By removing that information, you are - metaphorically speaking - burning the only known translation of a book. You are erasing recorded history, and that is absolutely unacceptable. I will continue to revert that version until a rational consensus can be reached. There needs to be a place for information like that, especially when Wikipedia is the only reputable home on the internet to translated information such as that. I do not care if you can't settle on an agreement upon how to organize something like that. If you are removing detailed information like that for the sake of "consistency", you are an enemy to the preservation and recording of history, and that is downright putrid and you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPopPapi (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@KPopPapi: It is trivial, and you do not own the article. Any continued disruptive behavior will only lead you to being blocked. On the contrary to your claim, you have to find consensus to include the content, not the other way around. It wasn't there in the first place. Wikipedia is not a fansite nor is it a place to dump any and all information simply because it is exists. ƏXPLICIT 11:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the removal of dating info from Korean artists

There are currently 2 discussion about the removal of dating info from Korean artists Talk:Kim_Hee-chul#Personal_life_section and Talk:Kang_Daniel#Personal_relationship. Please help us reach a consensus. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Add photo for Ri Chun-hee?

(Question also posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Korea, but raising here as well for greater coverage.)

I would like to propose adding a non-free photo of Ri Chun-hee (the North Korean TV news presenter), per a fair use exemption. Normally, the "pictures of people still alive" condition would bar fair use of a non-free picture of a living person, on the assumption that a free image may eventually become available. But it would appear vanishingly unlikely for anyone to ever be able to obtain a free photo of Ms. Ri under any circumstances — much less a picture of her in the pink attire that is an essential part of her persona and her notability. So, I'm strongly inclined to argue that a non-free photo of her, taken from a screen grab of a South Korean or other foreign news broadcast, would be appropriate. Comments? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Korea. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reversing the eradication of the relationships section on Korean artists' pages

A few days ago, there was an edit war on Kim Hee-chul revolving around the Relationships section and we started a discussion about whether to remove it or not. However, while discussing with the other editors, I came to the realization that the Korean artists' articles' editors hold different views on the matter and enforce removal of verifiable and well-sourced information from WP:BLP because they subjectively deem them insignificant or allegedly "harmful" and "sensitive information" (against WP:CENSOR) as can be seen here Here. Also, for years I have been told that when Korean artists' breakup the info of them dating should be deleted, and now I discovered that all that was decided against Wikipedia guidelines without any proper discussion and a consensus as seen here discussion 1 and discussion 2, and many of pages lost the Relationships section because a couple of editors thought they are not necessary even thought they are usually well-cited.

I raised the issue here but an admin, Guy, closed it and told me here that: "Per existing policy and guidance, you can add a relationship that's reliably sourced, remove only if you think it's not reliably sourced, and if anyone challenges a specific addition then you discuss it on the Talk page. Facts supported by reliable sources can be added, but if they are challenged by another editor it's your job to achieve consensus for inclusion."

Dating news (dating or breakup) that are well covered and are confirmed news by both parties/agencies do not fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:FAN. Dating news should be Neutral point of views, Verifiable under Korean reliable sources, and not an original research, so the points raised in discussion 1 and discussion 2 are against Wikipedia's already "existing policy and guidance" in WP:BLP. Dating news should not be deleted from the Relationships sections when it is well sourced with even international news outlets covering it by using discussion 1 as an excuse or saying all dating news are inherently insignificant. They keeps saying that any thing that doesn't contribute to the person's career should be removed, so should we also delete the birthplace, birth year, mention of family members, and education and Uni's major (if it is not acting/singing/etc.)? Please be consistent.

Relationships section can be seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist (Park Shin-hye, Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, Shin Min-a, and Kim Woo-bin, etc) or western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc). There should be a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. As the admin said, there should not be a Korean-artist-wide rule that states that sections should be deleted when a person breaks up and it should be a page-by-page consensus. Personally, I think it should either be that, or the relationships section should be totally eradication even from western artists' pages or totally allowed (with dating and breakup info) on all pages included Korean artists' pages, as we can't objectively judge if the dating news is significant or not, or the duration of the artists' relationship before the relationship is deemed long term and allowed on the page (1 year, 2 years, etc), or how famous should they be to deem the relationship significant.

To conclude, my main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 suggesting that all dating news are inherently insignificant and WP:FAN if artist break up and should be removed, which is being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I wish for issues of inclusion and deletion to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Format your comment to contain "Keep" the Korean-artists-wide rule reached on discussion 1 and discussion 2 about the eradication of the relationships section upon break up or "Reverse" the eradication of the relationships section upon break up, and include a rationale for your choice and please use guidelines and don't give me nonsense subjective non-Wikipedia useful reasons such as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo” since that is WP:CENSOR. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not supporting this as a censoring or not. Rather, for 99% of all dating news ... it is trivial and not notable. It becomes a news event and then nothing happens. They move on, they break up, it's transient news. It adds nothing to their career. WP:ONUS says that not all verifiable information needs to be included. Adding one sentence that "X is announced to be dating Y" and nothing beyond that is a trivial mention and really adds no context. I'm not against mentioning specific relationships when there are other influences to their notability beyond that - esp in regards to Korean news media. But as a whole, specific current relationships aren't necessary just as we don't list all previous relationships. Evaders99 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "just as we don't list all previous relationships." Who said that we can't add info if they break up? That is the issue I'm talking about, people use it as an excuse to include info. There is no proper consensus to remove info if artist break up. Actually, the main consensus on Wikipedia is to allow it if it is reliably sourced as seen western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc), even Good articles, that have been looked at my multiple editors, allowed it. The current main consensus on Wikipedia which is stronger than a few editors consensus in here. Only Korean article editors make up their own rules, without proper discussions and try to enforce them on all pages. Your are the ones that need consensus to remove dating info about Korean artists break up in page-by-page discussion, as the removal goes against Wikipedia guidelines, not others who need to make dissuasion every time you remove it for no reason even though it is allowed throughout Wikipedia. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about... heck, a lot of their notability is who they are in relationship to their ex's ("Beniffer", "Brangelina", etc). Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with. In every example you link, the Korean artist has one line. The Western artist has two or more paragraphs on their relationships. No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here. Plenty of additions to Korean artists are press releases and don't really go into the why it matters. Context matters. For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either? Evaders99 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about..." See Brad Pitt (a featured article by the way), him dating Robin Givens, Jill Schoelen, and Juliette Lewis is mentioned all in 1 sentence. That is not "significantly more to write about". "Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with." Subjective. Lots of extremely famous Korean actors date other extremely famous Korean actors, but the info is removed, even though other find it significant as the couple are famous worldwide, but their opinion is rejected because of the ingrained believe that there is a consensus that sates that dating info should be removed while there is not. "No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here." It might for Kim Hee-chul and Kang Daniel, but it is not the case on other articles when the info is removed immediately following the break up without a page-by-page discussion because of discussion 1. "For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either?" That is a different issue, we are not speaking about adding random info about non-celebrity. If an actor dates them, their name, if available, is mentioned as it is relevant to the actor's news of dating them (Since ####, XX actor has been dating non-celebrity YY), of course only if it can be reliably sourced. WP:NPF is not applied here as the non-celebrity is only mentioned at most once or twice because of the person of interest's page, we are not writing paragraphs about them. Also, aren't non-celebrity always mentioned when a celebrity marries them? Based on your logic, shouldn't WP:NPF imply to them too? But I really don't care about that, my issue is mega-famous Korean celebrities having their dating info removed for no reason except discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is this nonsense? On Wikipedia, that which can be reliably sourced, can be included. If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion. Nothing needs to change: that is how Wikipedia already works. Guy (help!) 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, It is already being debated and no consensus is being reached. I think people are looking for more guidance project-wide, otherwise this fight just spills into every single page. (Also people use WP:OSE as a argument again and again) Evaders99 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This also makes not much sense to me. If the aim is to get editors interested in Korean artists to conform to wikipedia standards then for sure, they should. We don't have one rule for one wikiproject and different ones for the rest of wikipedia. Wikiprojects, especially ones like this, are useful in helping provide guidance on what could be considered a reliable source and other information that may be hard to come across for editors unfamiliar with a topic, but they are still bound by the PAGs and general good editing practise. The trouble is the discussions linked above show no evidence of this, so I am not sure what the op is getting at.

As to the wider question on whether to include relationship updates I tend to agree with the consensus reached at the other pages. We don't need it unless it plays a significant role in the persons life. Significance is subjective; but things like marriage, kids, length of time, any major incidents etc should provide some evidence of significance. As such these should be done on a case-by-case basis and any blanket rules are just going to create more headaches than necessary. I would also be wary of reliable sources. Tabloids, or even more reputable publishers, that use celebrity gossip as clickbait should not be used anywhere on a BLP. Also having a reliable source is the minimum for inclusion, we also have to take into account due weight, not news, recentism and other factors. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn I amended the first post to be more clear. My main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I see excuses such as “It will be removed after the artists break up because of discussion 1, so why add it from the start?” They would remove the info even if it was significant relationship between very famous actors or years long relationship because they believe discussion 1 told them all info from all pages should be removed following break up. I wish for issues to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; shouldn't come as a surprise that this is my opinion, and this is the same opinion for western and eastern articles. Unless there's something particularly notable or significant about the relationship I see no real reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not mean it needs to be in an article. Alex (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - it really doesn't make any difference what the guidelines are here at WikiProject Korea about including dating relationships, like Guy stated — If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion.. So in my view, it's on a case by case basis for any article, and if consensus is achieved to add the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaidnoway I'm not talking about adding or deleting info from a specific page, what I'm talking about is reverse discussion 1 so it is not used as an excuse to remove things with no discussion page-by-page. Which means next time someone comes to delete dating info from an artist that recently broke up, has to open a new discussion on the artist's talk page instead of using discussion 1 as a reason with no discussion. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; actually this can be apply to all celebrity.i put concern here because of culture that korea having to be honest but i see from an earlier discussion, i become more strongly believe that dating info is not important enough to put in an encyclopedia. Is only daily news that not worth to be someone history that everyone need to know unless is having some big change happen to their life or carreer because their relationship. Lucia kwon (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; From what i see is right to delete it after they break up, and i even more agree if they not put a dating issue at all. Dating issue either they date or break up is not important to be listed without a very important reason that make it more significant event to be list. Lee Hayi (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; i don’t understand why we need to discuss about this again, the topic that decide before is actually what is best, we don’t need to delete if is have the significant event on their relationship. For example like what is listed on Sulli or Goo Hara article that even they has break up, they have a significant and notable event happen that important for people to know about. When it’s nothing then what should people know who they used to date with? If you compare with they biography such a birth date , place or education. That all is their important history where is being celebrate and can be people choice to go study, so of course that is important to be listed. Dating ? Break up ? In normal occasion what is so important about that so people need to know? I think is need to see case by case wether the relationship or the past relationship is worth enough to keep for people to know and why. Timing999 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BP Guinness World Record discussion

I posed a question on the talk page of the Blackpink awards article regarding the GWR section and got some responses from only 3 editors related to the page, one of whom did not seem to understand at all what I was asking. In light of that I am hoping for additional thoughts on the matter if anyone is willing to take a look. Please note I am not contesting the information's inclusion but rather the way it is being presented on the page, as it seems to hinge upon a technicality in the supporting reference rather than clear-cut official confirmation from the record awarding body. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Seoul station listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Seoul station to be moved to Seoul Station. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.