Talk:Chaeyoung

How can this page become official?

Does anyone know how this page could become official and not just be a draft? Bibian48 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bibian48: She needs to meet notability guidelines as an individual. Currently, she doesn’t. There is nothing in the article that is about Chaeyoung as an individual outside of Twice that makes her notable. Alex (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The same goes for Dahyun but her page was approved... Bibian48 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Dahyun meets WP:ENTERTAINER as having a large following, shown by her placing 17th in Gallup Korea’s poll. Regardless of that though, another non-notable article being created would not be warrant to create another non-notable article. Alex (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, same reason why we also don't have a page for Mina and Jihyo right now (we do have a draft for them; Jihyo at Draft:Park Ji-hyo and Mina at Draft:Mina (Twice)). It's just a case of waiting right now, but that does give opportunity to further improve the draft. --Redalert2fan (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No one has touched the draft in a while. I believe that I've improved the article a bit. I feel it's quite decent now, but maybe it's lacking just one or two things that will get it through. Obviously, there's always room for improvement. But in terms of just meeting the requirements to publish the article, i feel it's getting close. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as the article will be sourced by Allkpop, KProfiles, Channel Korea, Koreaboo etc., it definitely wont be accepted, all those sources are easily unreliable. Out of 21 sources currently in the article, only 5 of them are reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

They may not be the world's most reliable sources, but i don't think theyre unreliable sources either, especially if expressing non-contested claims. Some of those sources have wikipedia pages e.g allkpop and koreaboo, if theyre notable enough to have wikipedia articles, i cant see why they cant be sourced in this article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:KO/RS, those sources cannot be used as they have no credibility. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, I guess you are right then. This article probably isn't ready to be published yet then. However, with 1 or 2 reliable sources it probably can be. These may pop up in the future. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This article was submitted for review/acceptance over a month ago. Are we able to remove that submission? I feel like there is general consensus that the draft is not ready to be published as of yet. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also deleted all the unreliable sources, because it's better that the article not rely on them. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The main thing this article needs now is one or two more reliable sources that discuss Chaeyoung as an individual and not just as part of Twice. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

For this time I have declined the Submission as per the discussion above. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

An important source

Well, I found a reliable source that gives Chaeyoung notability as an individual. It's an interview from GQ Korea: http://www.gqkorea.co.kr/2019/08/20/chaeyoung/. If someone speaks Korean, adding information from this interview into the draft could help getting this draft published (or closer to being published). Unfortunately, I don't speak Korean. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That sure gives her some notability, but cant see what can we include from this, its basically a talk about fashion. It mentions that she wrote "Strawberry", but thats already sourced from KOMCA. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

According to google translate, it says something about her being in "rapper position". Perhaps the article could be used to cite the 'main rapper' claim? (assuming that is what the article actually says). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It says that she was always a rapper, even when being a trainee, it doesnt directly says that she is a "main rapper" of Twice. But it can be interpreted that he is a rapper in the group, it can be added to the lead section. Maybe drop "main rapper" and simply write something like "Chaeyeoung is one of the two rappers in the group". Snowflake91 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh, i prefer the wording as it currently is because the words "main rapper" are used in the sources already listed. If it becomes "one of the two rappers" then well, the sources dont explicitly say that. And what if someone else does a rap for twice in the future? Then the information would i guess be incorrect. So i suppose we don't need to use the GQ source, I was hoping it had a lot of facts in it that could flesh out the article, but it doesnt seem to. Given that it isnt in English it probably isnt the make or break difference between Chaeyoung being notable enough.Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Language is not important, the sources can be in any language and she would still be notable as long as the source is reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let you decide then, see if you can find some way to use it that is useful. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Found a citation? (possibly)

The song "Precious Love" currently has a citation needed tag to prove Chaeyoung wrote it. Is this a valid citation? https://m.star.naver.com/staronair/special/1177/end?langCode=ko. As i mentioned before, i don't speak Korean, but I think i've linked to the right place because i saw JYP linked to it on twitter https://twitter.com/jypetwice/status/719726026004103168?lang=en. If anyone speaks Korean, and can translate that link, please cite it if it is the correct citation to use. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, those are just dates for their comeback showcases or something, there is no mentioning of songwriters or Chaeyoung. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was a listing of the songs from the Page Two (EP). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

How about this, does it mention Chaeyoung in the writing credits? (https://twice.jype.com/discography.asp?idx=2&page=4) Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but I found this, and here it says that only JYP wrote the song, and she also isnt credited on KOMCA for this song, so I removed it. She probably wrote rap part of this song but is not officially credited as a co-writer unless someone finds a reliable source. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually she is credited, here. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a source that she wrote "How U Doin" from &Twice? Snowflake91 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Found something

The Momo article lists Momo as having a hosting credit and Chaeyoung is listed as one of the co-hosts: Momo_Hirai#Event_hosting. Because I can't read Korean (and confirm the citation) it's unethical for me to copy and paste that over. If any Korean speakers could confirm the accuracy of the citation, then it's probably worth adding to that credit to this article? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it would be notable to include, but perhaps you could post the citation here so that people would not have to search it or can find it if it would be removed from the Momo page? Thanks, --Redalert2fan (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It has already been done a while ago. Snowflake checked the citation and edited it on the Momo page. He just didn't comment here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is the event hosting credit in filmography. It was listed on Momo's page so i thought it should be listed here too. Im not saying it gives substantial notability. It's just a small thing worth adding. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it ready to publish?

Does the article meet WP: GNG now? Chaeyoung has received coverage as an individual from multiple secondary sources. Tempo, GQ, Elite Daily, Korea Herald, korea herald 2, IBT India, SCMP, IDN times, IBT Singapore, Straits Times, La Republica, La Republica 2. It's worth noting that none of these sources were known about or included in the article at the time that the previous draft(s) had been rejected. Also, it's worth noting that i don't think Chaeyoung being the only member of Twice not to have a wikipedia page makes sense. It doesn't improve wikipedia for Chaeyoung not to have a page, and simply confuses the average reader. The common sense argument has to count for something Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Later edit, more sources: NBC sports, oddly enough and La Republica, new article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I declined last time If you request a review I will let someone else review it this time. The argument "because all other members have a page so Chaeyoung needs or can have one as well" will get shot down immediately however, that is a clear case of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. There is no such thing as a rule for "common sense" to be reason for an inclusion on Wikipedia. Is the person notable enough to pass the criteria with reliable sources, then they will be included. If that is not the case they won't. Either way, inclusion or rejection is regardless of any personal opinions or what an "average" reader might think, which is debatable by itself. The average reader seems to have no idea about Wikipedia policy at all, but I don't think ignorance on their part should be a reason to just publish any article so that they "won't get confused". If you provided that as the only argument it would get declined right away.

Now, If you think that you have improved the article enough, or Chaeyoung is more notable now to pass the GNG and the sources are good and confirm this, that would be a good reason to request another review and you have my support for that, you probably wouldn't even need to ask it here (AFC is not a voting process). Somebody else will come and review it. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The fifth pillar of wikipedia seems to suggest that common sense is relevant. Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P5. I'm happy to publish it at this stage because my understanding is that GNG only requires a few pieces of coverage by secondary sources...but i thought it was best to seek consensus first. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've submitted for review anyway. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Main rapper

Note to future editors: This discussion was previously listed under the section "An important source", but the conversation didn't relate to discussion of that source. I have moved the editors' discussion to a new section on the talk page, because it's probably important that future editors can see this discussion in its own section of the talk page. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if I understood every detail being discussed above, but – amongst many others – two citations already being used in the articles clearly state Chaeyoung to be the main rapper https://www.elitedaily.com/p/who-is-twices-chaeyoung-this-triple-threat-has-too-much-talent-19373881 https://www.elitedaily.com/p/who-is-twices-dahyun-prepare-to-fall-for-all-her-charms-19199973 while at least the latter clearly differentiates Dahyun's lead rapper status. Are these non-RS? Again, I didn't quite recognize the reason to exclude or as in one incident even misstate their respective positions, which are not only widely known and (for once) generally accepted, but also substantiated by various sources. --WPmurphy (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion doesnt relate to what you are talking about. I think you should start a new section on the talk page about this, because youre talking about a different issue. The discussion had above is quite old. In regard to your question, I'm not sure why the article says that we are not allowed to use the term "main rapper". From memory it was @DanielleTH: who added that bit in. So I believe she can explain it. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The conversation I appended to was discussing Chaeyoung's position as a main rapper and therefore absolutely related to what I was talking about. Yet my specific concern was indeed distinct and I didn't refer to the source in question, so my apologies for that. Also I second your segregation of the following discussion for other reasons being mentioned, so thanks for moving it. --WPmurphy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Danielle, I think Murphy wants you to explain: this edit. I don't understand it either. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Some discussions (one, two) were held on the BTS page a while about positions, and people felt that positions such as main, lead, and sub would not be put on the pages as they mean nothing to those unfamiliar to K-pop. The point of an article is to be understandable to everyone, not just fans of the genre. This caused a number of conflicts on the Jungkook page, but consensus was to leave it omitted. (See one and two.) I would appreciate if you read through my comments in link one for my full opinion the matter, but to summarize: if someone unfamiliar with Chaeyoung and/or K-pop is referencing this article, they won't know what main rapper means and thus it serves no purpose. What a "main rapper" is varies heavily by K-pop group. If her role as a main rapper has her doing more than other members (like writing her rap verses) then that should be noted in an artistry section where that is explained. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@DanielleTH:I agree with the premise that kpop articles need to be accessible to non kpop fans. I'm not very familiar with K-Pop stuff. So speaking as a non-Kpop fan, I can safely say that I understood the term "main rapper" to mean exactly the same thing as the K-pop term "main rapper". I can understand why K-pop terms like "lead rapper" shouldn't be used, because that has a different meaning in kpop compared to ordinary english. But I struggle to see how an ordinary english speaker wouldn't understand "main rapper"...those are just regular english words. "Primary rapper" sounds way more confusing/unnatural to an ordinary english speaker. I actually wrote "main rapper" in the article, *before* i knew that was even a "position" in Kpop. Main rapper just seems to be the ordinary english way to refer to...well, the main rapper. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally for me, I'd rather not mention main or primary in the lead at all... all you need in the lead is that she frequently performs raps for Twice, then have a proper section that discusses what she does for specifically as a rapper in Twice. My concern with "main rapper" is that I still don't even think it's clear, by main does that mean she's the only one who raps in Twice? Or that, if there's only one rap verse, she performs it? That she writes them? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For me I think a lot of the confusion stems from differentiating "main" and "lead", I'm a fan of the genre and I have to admit I'm not even entirely sure what the difference is between the two. To me, the two words could mean the same thing so it can become confusing why both terms are used. In my opinion the only thing that really needs to be specified is if the artist is predominantly a rapper or a vocalist of the group. Alex (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite what you have claimed above, you might be absolutely familiar with the following. In this case, please don't see this as a personal reply but just as a clarifying supplement for other readers instead. "The lead vocalist is actually secondary to the main vocalist, but takes the vocal lead in songs by singing before the main vocalist(s) during verses." [...] "Like the lead vocalist, the lead rapper is considered secondary to the main, not necessarily in terms of skill but in terms of how many lines they receive per song." (Forgive me for not naming the source which would potentially spawn even more debate.) These are the reasons why I'm not really comfortable with using "primary" and "secondary" instead of "main" and "lead" myself, but also why IMO using "primary" and "secondary" is still better than nothing at all, as long as the use of "main" and "lead" is rejected. I've been thinking about a compromise a lot, which e.g. could be to apply both instead of exclusively one or the other, like "main rapper (primary rapper)" and "lead rapper (secondary rapper)", but I can already see this being reverted as "chatty" and the direct juxtaposition of both variants causing even more dissent than using only one of them. I just wanted to mention this for the sake of demonstrating commitment to finding solutions that suit completely uneducated readers and actually interested readers alike. --WPmurphy (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for the clarifying contributions. I read and understood everything above, yet my take on the matter remains divergent. Since other articles about other subjects include extensive use of subject-specific terminology as well, I don't embrace an ultimately conclusive reason to discard mildly challenging K-pop related terms from K-pop related articles despite the above provided material. Especially not if this means omitting information that is much sought-after by new and aspiring members of the community that the primary readership recruits from, or even worse, if these terms happen to be misunderstood and misused to re-enforce false statements as in most recent incidents, causing even more confusion instead of avoiding it. Personally, when I was confronted with the concept of main rappers and lead rappers first, it took me about two minutes to sort that out. Which is exactly what I have to do in order to understand other biographical or topical articles as well. I wouldn't even hesitate to expand the Rapping main article by elucidating explanations, but we all know how this would play out so don't take me serious on that. The "an article is to be understandable to everyone" notion to me sounds rather like the approach of Simple English Wikipedia than the point of a regular Wikipedia article. HOWEVER, I have no interest whatsoever neither in re-sparking a debate that has already been settled nor in interfering with a consensus that has already been established. This is purely meant to express my concluding sentiments and to encourage other readers who haven't participated yet to advance their opinion as well. (NOTE: This was actually to be posted on 14:51, 18 May 2020 UTC, but I screwed up and had to restore a previous session to effectively post it now – might be relevant in certain context.) --WPmurphy (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the term "lead rapper" is that an ordinary English speaker would understand it differently to someone familiar with kpop jargon. Wikipedia has a policy of avoiding that kind of thing. With regard to your edit here and the compromise situation you have recommended above, the issue is that I can't really find the evidence of Dahyun actually being a "secondary" rapper. And just based on the songs i've listened to, it seems that Dahyun does as much rapping as Chaeyoung anyway, so using the term "secondary rapper" could actually be misleading. If reliable sources say that Dahyun is a secondary rapper, or that she does less rapping rapping than Chaeyoung, then I'm happy to use that terminology. I guess the further problem, is that it seems that on other kpop pages they've already agreed not to use "main" and "lead", so in the absence of a reasonably clear consensus, there's not much to be gained from trying to add that here because those edits won't last for long. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies' edits

Drmies has made 3 reverts on a previously stable version in the span of a day, deleting large amounts of content. It would be good if editors not involved in this could weigh in. I have always believed in seeking consensus and do not believe this is how articles should be edited. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason as to why any songwriting credits should be removed as well. Poklane 17:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have two "issues" with the edits regarding songwriting credits. Firstly, I don't understand the reasoning that using KOMCA as a reference is "improper sourcing". Yes, it comes directly from KOMCA so it can be considered a primary source. However, charting information also comes directly from Gaon or whichever chart for each country, and yet that is never questioned. Album credits typically come from the CD liner notes, and yet they are not questioned or removed as "improper sourcing". Are those not also examples of primary sources? And if so, what makes their usage acceptable but not KOMCA? So, I don't see why KOMCA cannot be used for the credits. It's not making an outrageous claim and it's not like anyone can edit KOMCA and claim they've contributed to music that they haven't.

Now, if including the artists songwriting/production credits is at all an issue then I feel like this is something that would be more suitable to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, or the music WikiProject in general, and gain consensus there before removing the information from any articles as this is something that would affect a lot more than just this article.

I'm going to ping @Drmies: here, because if the discussion is specifically discussing an editor and their edits, I feel it is only fair they are at least pinged and made aware of the discussion and can respond. Alex (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The songwriting credits are merely the latest thing used to generate more content and more spinoffs. Apples etc. claims it is normal procedure for musicians--well, it is not. Yes, GAON charts are primary, but one can assume that all these charts are notable in their own right, and verifiably so in secondary sources, and most everyone agrees that record sales matter; we have extensive documentation on which charts are reliable and which aren't. The comparison goes awry because "songwriting credits", sourced from some agency or other, are not by themselves noteworthy. And this should NOT be settled on some K-pop project page, but with the more general project, where these editors will soon discover that we do not typically list those kinds of things in articles. What I think everyone here fails to see, including you, Alexanderlee, is that the requirement for secondary sourcing isn't just for reasons of correctness, but also to establish whether something is worth noting in an encyclopedic article or not. If these editors would care to look at other articles, they'd quickly realize they're living in a bubble. Imagine reading Carly Simon, or Neil Young, or Leonard Cohen--the latter probably one of the most celebrated songwriters ever--and having, in that article, a list of songwriting credits. How many songs has Neil Young written? For Leonard Cohen there's Category:Songs written by Leonard Cohen--none of you can will be able to argue in any way that these compositions we're talking about are on a par, and they are not listed in Cohen's article.

What we are dealing with here is yet another kind of inflation, where every single little thing is blown out of proportion, with reference only to primary sources or, at best, media outlets which are mouth pieces for the fans and the industry. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And Poklane, you're just tag-teaming--you know very well that I gave a proper reason in my edit summaries, so your argument is specious. Trouwens, het is "on the talk page"; ff opletten alsjeblieft. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Given your explanation there, Drmies, I have to agree with you. My first "issue" wasn't really an opposition to its removal, or support of its inclusion, but more for some understanding on what was mentioned within that comment. Thanks for explaining that. Alex (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Alex, it is entirely possible that someone's songwriting credits are worthwhile. It is also possible--and I've seen this in K-pop articles--that being a songwriter is an "extra" thing, as if to say "not just a face, or a rapper". If that is so, then secondary sources will prove that, but it will be a matter for article text, not for yet another table or list or whatever. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I came her for a discussion, but I have no desire to have a "discussion" with someone who just one day decides to remove content from a Wikipedia article without explanation and then becomes hostile when people don't disagree with them. Instead of just doing what you did you could have started a discussion on here about the subject and stated your opinions as to why songwriting credits should not be included but you didn't, you just removed the songwriting credits and then got pissed when people disagreed with you.Poklane 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Poklane:, Drmies did provide explanation for removal in their edit summaries, though. Alex (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Apples&Manzanas thoughts: Replying to...@Poklane:, @Alexanderlee:, @Drmies:

1. The following are not valid arguments for deletion: "The songwriting credits are merely the latest thing used to generate more content and more spinoffs", "What we are dealing with here is yet another kind of inflation, where every single little thing is blown out of proportion, with reference only to primary sources or, at best, media outlets which are mouth pieces for the fans and the industry." Those comments are just a mixture of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, personal feelings, POV, and the slippery slope fallacy.
2. Is KOMCA even a primary source? If KOMCA is not a primary source then the entire case for deleting the material is null and void. If someone wants to delete the material they actually need to explain why KOMCA is a primary source in the first place. WP:Identifying and using primary sources gives three criteria. (A) Is it self-published? No, KOMCA isn't self-published, therefore not a primary source. (B) Is the source independent? Yes, KOMCA is independent of Chaeyoung and Twice, therefore it isnt a primary source. (C) Is the source primary? No, the "primary" is the original music CD, KOMCA didn't write those song lyrics, therefore yet again it isn't a primary source.
3. My third argument is that Chaeyoung's song-writing *HAS* been mentioned in other reliable sources anyway...See for example references to her songwriting and the songs she has written in this Billboard interview, South China Morning Post, this GQ interview (if you don't speak Korean, it mentions the song Young&Wild), and this fuse tv article, which also mentions Chaeyoung's songwriting. So what exactly is the logic here? We can mention some of those songwriting credits then but not the full list? And make it seem like we've just got an incomplete list of songwriting credits? We can make a totally incomplete list of Chaeyoung's songwriting credits because some of those songs were mentioned in interviews, but not mention the rest? I fail to see the logic here. I guess some people may have just assumed that Chaeyoung's songwriting had never been covered beyond KOMCA.
4. Besides, here's the funny thing, wikipedia policy actually permits primary sources under various circumstances anyway WP:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully. Even if it were a primary source (which it isn't), it almost seems like Wikipedia policy has been written to specifically allow that kind of thing.
5. But it bears repeating, KOMCA is definitely not a primary source. So uhh...what's the case for deleting this material?
6. If someone can show me a wikipedia policy, and show me how the material is in breach of this policy, and there's consensus to delete the material, then great...let's delete the material. But this hasn't been done whatsoever and I believe the edit warring to be very unjustified. From my angle, it seems the material is entirely permissible, and there's no case to be made for deletion whatsoever. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as Poklane said, this actually needs to be discussed. From what I've seen so far, I fail to see a case to justify deletion whatsoever. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Update - it's also worth pointing out that the very lead of this article talks about Chaeyoung as being someone who has written the lyrics for multiple songs. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Adam Levine, which is a Good Article, has a "Songwriting credits" table included in his article. In BTS' Suga's article, an editor raised a similar concern if songwriting credits should be included, an administrator finds no reason to remove it. Heolkpop (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's funny how IDONTLIKETHAT is abused here and elsewhere. You don't like the arguments, you just say "ah you don't like it". I don't like this bloviation of articles, but editing in K-pop means going up against a bunch of fans who have more interest in their pet articles than in improving the encyclopedia. So one article mentions someone has co-written some songs, and BOOM we have yet another table with everything one could possibly include. And a reason to include "songwriter" in the lead and the categories. And a spin-off, "List of songs co-written by person X". Etc. Oh, Adam Levine didn't have songwriting credits in the article when it was promoted to GA, seven years ago, and even a quick look at that version shows that it really wasn't that good at the time: look for punctuation, for trivial content (the paragraph about drug use), the headings (not MOS-compliant); it was passed by an editor who at the time had made only a few hundred edits, so I wouldn't hold that article up as some gold standard. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's weird. At Exo article, when I re-added the Naver sources, you said that I was undermining its GA status without you downplaying the reviewer. However, this time round, you find that the reviewer at Adam Levine did not have enough experience so we should not hold that article up as some gold standard. And yes, one of the "list of songs" "spin-offs" is an FL. Heolkpop (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't respond to a single argument I've made. I can only assume you have agreed with everything I've said. As for you saying "so one article mentions someone has co-written some songs"...well look at my recent edit on Jihyo, four out of seven of her song writing credits have been covered by sources other than KOMCA. We can't use KOMCA for the other three...because...? You have never given a reason. And the SCMP article I just found for Chaeyoung mentions her as having written 4 songs, you're okay with this being included in the article too presumably? But not KOMCA because...? Sorry, even on your own logic, those songwriting credits tables will exist regardless. You just want to see there be incomplete songwriting credits tables and have never provided a valid policy argument as to why. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Funnily enough, I have now managed to find non-KOMCA citations for every single one of Jihyo's songwriting credits. But the question I asked still remains a valid one. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"T-shirt controversies" should be removed.

It originates in Chinese propaganda to slander Korean artistes. 211.44.179.24 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Yannn¹¹ 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)