Jump to content

Talk:Girls' Generation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluesoju (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 19 August 2011 (→‎Konglish in this article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject iconKorea C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Record Label

Why do you always remove Avex Group Taiwan on the infobox? RafaelPPascual (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Girls' Generation's Debut in Japan, all CDs and DVDs are published by Universal Music in Taiwan. here --Christian140 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Replacement Concern

Free image, taken by Sry85 (talk · contribs)

To those people who are going to replace SNSD's image with any promotional or fansite images, according to Wikipedia Policy about the fair use criteria, the use of such fair use image should be used if there is no free equivalent images available. However, there is at least one free images (as shown on the right) that can be used. Although promotional and fansite images could provide better quality, the quality of this free image is acceptable. The reason "Beautiful" and "Newer (if not taken and published under free license)" is not a criteria for usage of fair-use materials. Thank you. --G(x) (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if the peron(s) who own the copyright on said fan or official sites allow the use of the image(s)? What then…? SilvestertheCat (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If so, image should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, however as a precautionary, the copyright holder should also send their Declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to state that copyright holder has allowed the image to be used under free license. Most of the newer image replaced in this article were sourced as Facebook, or some sites that retain full copyright over the content and the author has not clarify the use under free license of such content. If you find any other image that was released under free license, feel free to replace the current image with the new one every time. Thank you. --G(x) (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay thanks…now the hard part, actually being given permission to use an image. ;) SilvestertheCat (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common information removed as unsourced?

I undid a revision 415204389. The information was said to be removed because of "unsourced claims", however I don't think that really applies to this type of information (A table consisting of the members Names and Date of birth). I may be wrong on this, but the point of making sure claims about living people are sourced is to insure non-defaming/un-true content is not present. However the information removed seems to be so called "common information", or at least i don't see things like the name of a person being sourced in other articles. If anything maybe I could see the DOB needing to be removed if unsourced.

Just wanted to state my reason on un-doing that revision and start some sort of discusion on the matter. Grayfm (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your action. There are many sources that can be found for the information regarding the group members. SilvestertheCat (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
Yeah, I agree with Mr. Grayfm, too. The data like names and birthdays of living persons are the most basic part, but it is also difficult to find a reliable or verifiable source indicating those information of an entertainer from news reports. It would be more impossible for us to find a usable reference when their official website doesn't mention the information we need.
As I know, there are Korean fans celebrate for each members' birthdays on internet every year. The members would also response the fans and say their birthday wishes out. Those interactions were all recorded by fansites, but of course, they cannot be taken as reliable sources to prove their birthdays only because they are from forums. Still, I think it might be too over to delete the information on wiki page only by accusing them as "unsourced claims". If we put this restrictive standard on every wiki page of entertainers, there will be not much stuff we can put in then.
from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
WP:BLP is very clear - personal information needs to be properly sourced. The birthdates of the singers is almost always entirely irrelevant to an article about a band - if it is somehow relevant it will be covered by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
Well, maybe you're right though, I insist the names should be kept. In my latest edition, I recovered the member table, but I set the birth dates as hidden so that people can put the information back on to the page until reliable sources are added.
from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
Normally I would say that with the members listed in the lead, there is no reason for a standalone "members" section, but with the information about birth names and stage names and english and korean versions that does end up being the most effective/least cluttered way of communicating the information. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
Uh, I don't feel the table cluttered. You really should take a look at what it was like before I tabularized the data.
from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 03:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
Yes, I agree that a table seems to be appropriate in this case. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the member profile is irrelevant. I mean these are personal information that doesn't really matter on a band. An they have it on their personal pages. I think listing the members should be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.72 (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:32087465.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:32087465.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the first Korean girl group to place No. 1 on the Oricon chart

I have to disagree with this source that someone found online: http://10.asiae.co.kr/Articles/new_view.htm?sec=ent4&a_id=2011062414322963508

That's not correct. Its actually KARA but they did sell more than them. I think that the source is exaggerating things and it seams like its a bit misleading. 124.197.37.190 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just wanna say, SNSD is the first Korean girl group to place No. 1 on the Oricon Album chart. --Christian140 (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not truth. We need to keep this article as accurate and neutral as possible. 124.197.37.190 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you have a BETTER RELIABLE source in your mind tha could prove the already source wrong? Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SNSD RDR.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SNSD RDR.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members' Position

There has been several disputes regarding the Members' position. Many times, such information was removed as unsourced, but certain people tried to add it back with no references to support this information. I hereby tagged the member section as disputed, until the Members section was restored to the previous table with Date of birth, Real name and stage name, or references on the members' position have been located and cited properly in the article. Note that I am not a fanclub to Girls' Generation in any way; I just saw the edits on this section a matter to raise for comments. Thanks --G(x) (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. Normally, I remove it immediately as it violates both WP:OR and WP:RS/WP:V. The only thing that is proven is that Taeyeon is the leader. Beyond that, they all sing and dance, so positions are trivial at best. SKS (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konglish in this article

CF is not a real English word, it's a Konglish word (Korean made English). Yet in this article there are two instances of CF. I think it should be cleaned up. Bluesoju (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]