Talk:Aespa

Members section

@Paper9oll: As was discussed here a few years ago - members sections should be as minimal as possible (essentially just names and sourced positions) - these are group articles about the group, not the individual members. See every other K-pop group article for an example of this minimalism. Abdotorg (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Due to conflict in editing, some Wikipedians including you may like to have the members name listed only in English while some including me would like to have the members name (English, Korean/Japanese/Chinese), date of birth (age), nationality and description listed out in table format. Do note that even the description column which is state their role within the group is not referenced, the same can be said for articles where the group members have their own article for instance Irene of Red Velvet. You can see on the lead section where it mentioned that "She is a member and leader of the South Korean girl group Red Velvet and its sub-unit Red Velvet - Irene & Seulgi." and this is not referenced as well, even if you refer to the below section where the word leader is mentioned again and with references. The article that it was referenced from, have no mention of the word leader even it is reliable new source.

Hence, my suggestion is that if your think the description column is self-published then we can delete that column only. In addition, for your information, the table formatting is inline with others language Wikipedia (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc). Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

While I still disagree with you and think that there is no reason to have these listed in the article: there are no sources provided for the birth names, nationalities and dates of birth. As for positions I will add sources since these should be listed. Abdotorg (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

SM is expected to published their website sometimes soon then we can include the website as reference for the date of birth and also their role even though I know that have been referenced (thanks for the hard work) but still more references is better. Fyi, Red Velvet article used to have the same table (16:34 2 August 2014 version) and it was not until 11 March 2015 with (09:13, 11 March 2015 version) that the table was replaced by lead section inside member section. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Velvet_(group)&oldid=665986214 is what I meant by lead section inside member section. Furthermore, the 4 members is unlikely to get their own article anytime soon (maybe at least 1-2 years or maybe even longer) because there isn't anything to write. Unless you want to have the lead section inside member section instead of table, then when there's enough information to expand beyond lead section, we can copy/transfer what is written inside the member section onto the respective member's article. Currently, I think the table is enough. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 12:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I also don't understand the members section with the whole table. I don't think that it's necessary since other articles also don't have that. EN-Jungwon (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Other articles doesn't have it, doesn't mean we should just follow suit. Fyi, I was referring to Red Velvet article (16:34 2 August 2014 version) and it was not until 11 March 2015 with (09:13, 11 March 2015 version) that the table was replaced by lead section inside member section. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Velvet_(group)&oldid=665986214 is what I meant by lead section inside member section. Furthermore, the 4 members is unlikely to get their own article anytime soon (maybe at least 1-2 years or maybe even longer) because there isn't anything to write. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 12:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Red Velvet's article use to have it, doesn't mean we have to follow suit. EN-Jungwon (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Even though, we have different thoughts in regards to the table. Nevertheless, since the role and their age (not date of birth, we need wait for SM official website) have been referenced just leave the table as it is. It is not like the table is filled with irrelevance information and being an eye sore but information you would normally see inside the Template:Infobox but cut down in format.

What we can do moving forward starting with Aespa page as example is the replicate the same "concept" on other musical artist/group articles, this is ensure consistency from not just article to article within the English Wikipedia but also with other language wikipedia (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc). Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 12:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding on, SM is expected to published their website sometimes soon then we can include the website as reference for the date of birth and also their role even though I know that have been referenced (thanks for the hard work) but still more references is better. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 12:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 06:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Aespa (group) → Aespa – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other result for "Aespa" is a small, insignificant Estonian borough which can be easily disambiguated by using {{For}} on the top of the article. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the other subject is naturally disambiguated anyways. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Gbook search shows WP:NOPRIMARY. Let's revisit this if they get a record higher than #65 on the Korean charts. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, they just rose to #49 on the South Korean charts. Besides, k-pop groups do not really need to relevant in South Korea to be notable. They debuted 3 weeks ago and has already charted on the Billboard Global 200, already amassed 71 million views on YouTube, and broke the record for the biggest K-pop debut on YouTube. This group is also from SM Entertainment, which is South Korea's biggest record company, which explains their immediate popularity. Do you guys really think that a small Estonian borough is anywhere near the notability of this group? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nahnah, the Estonia place is not primary either, it's not a competition. Could they make the Korea Top 40? I realize that SM Entertainment pumps millions into each new girl/boy group, but even SM Entertainment can't buy encyclopaedic Primary Topic. Struggling to 49 just shows that there's WP:NOPRIMARY, yet. Let them get at least one song in the Korea Top 10 before we remove (group). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

But does a K-pop group really need a Top 10 song in South Korea to be notable though? Take a look at Loona – somehow it was decided that that group was more notable and was the primary topic for the term "Loona" when there is a Dutch singer also called Loona. But this group has not even charted once in South Korea. The same could be said for Everglow. Aespa has already cracked Top 50 – which is a pretty impressive feat for a group that just debuted weeks ago. As I also mentioned, this group has already charted on the Billboard Global 200 – a chart that only the top K-pop groups can chart in (the same issue only had the other groups BTS, Blackpink and Twice) – I don't see how its significance can only be measured by its popularity in their domestic market, considering that there are many successful and well-known K-pop groups that are pretty unknown in South Korea itself (see Stray Kids, Monsta X). Besides, a quick Google search for "Aespa" yields results of only this group, which should be a pretty clear indication that when people search "Aespa", they are searching for this group. I have also mentioned previously that this group's debut song already has 71 million views on YouTube, the same song which got 21 million views in its first 24 hours. This is a group that has already had significant impact on the K-pop scene despite being really new and all those numbers prove it. How is it not the primary search topic for the term "Aespa" with all these indicators then? Besides, WP:NOPRIMARY is for things like the two Michelle Williams, not for a rural Estonian borough and a K-pop group. One is obviously more significant than the other. That's the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Case in point, Loona (Punjabi epic) has more long term notability in an encylopedia. There are lots of non-notable non-charting pop acts that editors have placed over long-term encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You're conveniently ignoring everything I have said about the measurement of success for this group. It still does not answer how this K-pop group is not a primary topic for the term "Aespa" as if a one-page, unsourced article is anywhere on the same notability as a K-pop group. Cheers. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The group only debuted three weeks ago and isn't really relevant yet. As of now I think it's too early to change the name of the page. HDORS (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Google/Bing/Duckduckgo searches all returns Aespa. Furthermore, I don't think Aespa the state/city/town is notable enough and that article is basically stub. – Paper9oll | Talk:Paper9oll 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Paper9oll as all search results for "Aespa" on Google refers to the K-pop group. The k nine 2 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When people are searching "Aespa", they are looking for this group. The borough averaged a single page view from July 1, 2015 October 24, 2020, and a lifetime total of 2,849 up until that point [1]. Why are we relying on Google Books to write about a South Korean subject in English? What a ridiculous argument. ƏXPLICIT 03:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support, agree with Paper9oll, this aespa now is more popular.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 05:02, 14 December 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.