Talk:Kim Soo-hyun

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Korea Mid‑importance

	This 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.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Currently there are 4 Kim Soo-hyun's with a page on English wikipedia, and this particular actor had 91,521 hits last month, vs. writer (1348), the 1988 actor (1209) and the 1985 actress (393). That's over 96.9% of traffic for this actor. Since all of the options are currently in modern Korean entertainment, popularity can and should be the main consideration factor for determining primary topic. My only reservation is that the actress who goes by Claudia Kim is actually quite popular as well if you search for page stats using that English title, but still, the actor has over 4 times more traffic than her. Timmyshin (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidence of a clear primary topic by reader interest. bd2412 T 18:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Sawol (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current popularity should never be the basis for primary topic, because it is so ephemeral. Appearances in books and thoughtful journal articles is much more dispositive of encyclopedic primacy. Since none of those have that, none should get primacy. --Bejnar (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly the primary topic. Current popularity certainly plays a role in determining the primary topic, especially so when all of the subjects derive their notable purely from recent actions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we were so confined to ivory-tower literature as Bejnar suggests, we wouldn't have articles on these people at all. That's silly. Given how comparable these people are, as the nominator and Yaskar point out, the view stats alone are enough to show there's a clear primary topic. —innotata 02:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliability of sources

Since several sets of sources have recently been repeatedly removed from the page, I'm opening a section here to discuss the issue. Why are the various IP addresses objecting to these? Mortee (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion is how reliable those sources are. While most are just translations from Korean articles, a lot of blogs are not journalistic in nature and go beyond just reporting into original opinion, essays, and sometimes unscrupulous practices. I expect maybe some of the content can be resurrected through reliable Korean sources rather than specifically deleted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources Evaders99 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on my talk page pointed out that the sources have been re-removed. Do people generally feel this is the right call? I'm not putting them back again myself because I can't judge their quality but this does seem to leave the page a bit light on references. It'd be great if the IP user would comment here or someone could put some more solid references in place for the same parts of the article. Mortee (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Soo-hyun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110145832/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2012/04/363_109816.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2012/04/363_109816.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]