For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note regarding all the recent disruption at Lee Min-ho (actor) and The King: Eternal Monarch. I filed a sockpuppet investigation against several accounts I suspected were related. A CheckUser found that a single editor was operating 26 sockpuppets, which have all been blocked. I did not expect such a large group, so we'll have to be extra vigilant over these two articles. If you see similar editing behavior from any account henceforth, please feel free to contact me directly (or file another investigation if you're up for it). Thank you. ƏXPLICIT09:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your note about The King Eternal Monarch
My apologies for doing that. I noticed that this page presents a very negative view of the topic and was just trying to provide a more balanced presentation. It seems that edits to this page may now be done only by privileged users. May I request for a vandalism-free edit (backed by reliable references) to make on the page?
Current:
Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13] Contrary to that, the series was termed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online,[14] and South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]
Thus, despite being one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13]
Nevertheless, the series was hailed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online [14]. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]
@Lizzydarcy2008: Based on the sources, the lower viewership rating did not only come from controversies, they came from the bad production. We should not distorted words that are not from the sources. The current sentence is not negative, it says that although it was criticized, it was popular overseas. If you find critic reviews that favorably review the drama we will add their point. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the initial ratings were high. It is also true that the controversies hit SK viewers' patriotism. And as noted in http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644, the controversies "undermined the reputation of the drama". A drama with an undermined reputation becomes a target for criticisms and creates a bandwagon effect.
The current paragraph as it stands now does not mention the controversies, so it also distorted the facts. It has a more negative feel than balanced. The "contrary to that" sentence feels like GMA New Online and South China Morning Post were wrong.
One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13]
Despite this, the series was hailed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online [14]. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]
@Lizzydarcy2008: "Contrary to that" is talking about the low rating and popularity in Korea. You see it as wrong because you want to promote the series and distort fact. I added the controversy: Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction, editing, and various controversy leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a promoter, just an admirer of the show that is appalled at the negativity of the page. There is no mention of the effect of the controversies on SK viewers' patriotism and the undermining of the reputation of the show that largely explained the lower-than-expected domestic popularity. The word "contrary" has a negative connotation, making it feel like GMA News Online and South China Morning Post were wrong in hailing its overseas success. Thanks, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizzydarcy2008: Did you even bother scrolling down? The controversies are all written in a section down below. The first paragraph should not be filled with everything, it should have a brief summary of the page. You should just accept the fact that the series was not good that is why critics criticized it. We should balance the page but we should not make things up. As I said before, If you find critic reviews that favorably review the drama I will add their point. I Honestly tried looking for positive review to balance the page, but there were none. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the section on Controversy. However, the paragraphs before the Table of Contents are the most important because a lot of online readers would not scroll down. And that second paragraph is highly negative. It highlights the high production costs of the show that are not as highlighted for other dramas that incurred higher production costs like Arthdal Chronicles. This is why I removed it. It highlights the criticisms and lower-than-expected domestic ratings. You asked me to give positive feedback about the show and I gave such positive feedback about the high initial ratings. The first sentence below aims to explain what triggered the criticisms and lower-than-expected domestic ratings. I added another reference to add a newspaper's comment about the controversies pushing audiences away. Also, why can't we use flixpatrol statistics? I understand that the yearly statistics are not accurate and reliable, but the daily statistics are reliable and would be more accurate than saying "it was termed a hit Netflix series".
Requested Update:
The show garnered high domestic ratings in its first week but was beset by controversies that undermined the production and hit domestic viewers' patriotism, pushing them away.Thus, despite being one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter, extensive publicity and big production budget, the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.
Nevertheless, it became popular overseas and was hailed a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series".
(Or, if daily Flixpatrol statistics are accepted, the second paragraph above may be replaced with the paragraph below)
@Lizzydarcy2008: Again, so what if they are negative? You love the series, good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the series did not do well, we can't just change and distort facts. Also, flixpatrol is not reliable. I told you to give positive critic reviews, but I'm pretty sure you could not find one as I too looked for them. Please don't bother me anymore. I feel like I keep saying the same point over and over again. Just accept that the show did not do well and lots of critics criticized it. Why are you that upset? Where you paid to advertise it or did you invest in it? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for disturbing you yet again. But since we have already started discussing this, I figured you would be the best person to conclude discussions about this with. As I had pointed out, the negative discussion about the budget is not mentioned in any other kdramas like Arthdal Chronicles that incurred even bigger budgets. Thus, showing this in The King Eternal Monarch proves that is it being presented more negatively than similar shows.
The show did do well in streaming platforms. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is only showing network ratings which I believe is outmoded. At these times when more and more people are watching TV content through streaming services like Netflix, there should be a way to also show streaming statistics. Showing just the network TV figures does not show the real picture, thus is actually a distortion.
I am not in any way connected with the production or promotion team of The King Eternal Monarch. I am just a viewer who admires it, thus aware of how well received it was internationally and was surprised to see how unfairly negative its Wiki page is.
@Lizzydarcy2008: Losses not being pointed out in Arthdal Chronicles doesn’t mean you remove facts from here, instead go add the facts to Arthdal Chronicles. As for all the links you provided, they are all unreliable. Again, the only place that says the series is streamed a lot is flixpetrol, which is unreliable. This is my last message, please don’t bother me. I dislike repeating the same thing over and over again just because you can’t accept facts. You loss nothing if critics review it negatively, just move on and look for other series to watch. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk)
I'm sorry, but I'm seeing an injustice here that I cannot ignore. I've heard of this drama being sabotaged and I'm afraid Wikipedia is being used for that purpose. Why is flixpatrol not reliable? They have a disclaimer that their numbers are not to be used as actual viewing or sales figures which I have not done. I'm using their ranking figures which their site is for. I'm also aware they are missing statistics for the start of the year, up to April, I think, which is why I'm referencing daily, not yearly, statistics after April. Nielsen ratings and similar tools to get TV viewing statistics have been criticized for their inaccuracies since day one, so refusing to show Netflix statistics is questionable to say the least.
If I add the same note in Arthdal Chronicles, I will need to research all the other dramas to find out which other ones had high budgets as well, to be fair to both The King Eternal Monarch and Arthdal Chronicles. That would be a full-time job. Is Wikipedia going to fund my time to do that? The other way to establish fairness is to remove the negativity in TKEM that is not in other dramas. Since my attempt to do that had been reverted, I have suggested a compromise that would balance the negativity of that paragraph.
"I'm also aware they are missing statistics for the start of the year, up to April" that is become Netflix added their top ten ranking on April, that is why there is no old data.
"The other way to establish fairness is to remove the negativity in TKEM that is not in other dramas." WP:CENSOR.
You are taking things way personal, making it seem like you are part of the series crew or investors. I'm not going to reply anymore cause you don't seem to read what I wrote, so stop making new headers on my talk page. This is my last message, I don't care. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Surozee: The article is not even about the series. It is talking about how the digital content industry is driving the South Korean economy with only half a sentence saying the series placed number one on Netflix.
“넷플릭스(Netflix)에서 세계 1위 드라마로 명예를 떨친 '더 킹 : 영원의 군주'”, the sentence claims it was No.1 series of Netflix, but where did they get that info, no news source or data ever said that. It might have been in Korea, which was per flixpetrol for only a few non consecutive days (insignificant and unreliable), but the article did not include proof, images, or explanation for the sources of info.
I am sure you are using google translate cause the article doesn’t say it is forth on YouTube, it is talking about Baby Shark song.
“전 세계 유튜브 동영상 5 위에 달하는 한류 캐릭터‘아기 상어’등이있다.“ I copied the sentence you are talking about, google translate it if you want to see if I’m telling the truth.
Also, you do realize this is MY talk page, not the drama talk page. You want discus a change, do it there, not here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk)
Hello. I see that my edit on the second paragraph was reversed. I read that you see koreaboo and flixpatrol as unreliable sources. But the dozen of other sources I included are from reliable news organizations, and they are more updated than the ones cited in the existing text. These past few weeks, more comprehensive articles were released on the performance of the drama, thus, I suggest that these be included, if not replace the other sources, in the second paragraph.
@Syntyche S: "The series is the most-watched Netflix K-drama in the world in 2020,[10] [11][12] [13] as it is the only Korean film to rank in the most prestigious Netflix chart, "World Ranking," which collects and announces the ranking for all 190 countries.[14][15][16] In Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Nigeria, it has ranked No. 1 in the weekly TV shows, while it has maintained the top spot as popular content in Japan, India, Vietnam, Chile, and the Dominican Republic.[17][18][19] According to the data of Flixpatrol, the drama has entered the top 10 most popular TV shows in 28 countries,[13] and has been sweeping the top 10 for months." All based on the unreliable flixpterol data, Netflix did not announce that. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable? Aslo "which collects and announces the ranking for all 190 countries" is a lie, lots of countries are not measured on flixpetrol. Also "in the most prestigious Netflix chart" is nonsense. What is prestigious about the flixpetrol unreliable chart which was only introduced 4 months ago and the data changes daily. This is not a constant/final version of the end of year stat.
"Its strong popularity in the global OTT market has completely washed away the slump brought about by lackluster domestic ratings, at a time where local viewership is no longer the absolute criterion for a drama and structural changes to the classic ratings survey is needed in view of the rapidly changing media environment.[16][20][21][22] Nevertheless, in the domestic mega OTT platform Wavve, “The King” has maintained its No. 1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since its first airing.[23][15][18] With the performance of the series, the production company Studio Dragon has achieved its highest overseas sales ever.[24] Even before the airing, the company had already collected 32 billion won in production costs from "The King" and Netflix copyrights.[16] Meanwhile, according to the results of a survey of internet reactions to TV programs in the first half of 2020 conducted by the government agency Korea Communications Commission (KCC), “The King” has been included in the top 10 programs based on online posts, online comments, number of views on related video and news articles.[25]" Already in the Reception no need to include it at the top again. The top is a summary and should not be a copy and paste of other sections. Also the first sentence (changes in ratings) should go into Korean drama#Viewership ratings, not the series's page as it is unrelated. Also "the company had already collected 32 billion won in production costs" is already under the Production section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are not all based on flixpatrol. The roster of countries is based on the Netflix website itself for each said country. The Straits Times article cited in the current version also cites Netflix in the same vein as the other articles I included. By the way, the current source #44 from Wikitree is the one citing flixpatrol as its source.
Given that the rest of the first sentence should go to the Korean drama, the clause on "its popularity on global OTT market washing away the ratings" from the more recent articles of The Korea Times better represent and focus on the drama's performance than the older articles from GMA News online and South China Morning Post, which only mention the drama's performance in passing.
Given that the top is a summary and that it should not be a copy paste of other sections, the statement on the Wavve ranking I added in the Reception page should be moved to the top instead. This is to balance the statement on low terrestrial ratings, as Wavve has more subscribers than Netflix in Korea.
Also, the statement on Studio Dragon should not have been deleted from the top and rather moved to the Reception section.
The article from the news organization Manila Bulletin on the survey results of Korea Communications Commission (legitimate organizations having their own wikipedia pages), should also be retained in the Reception section
@Syntyche S:Can you confirm where they got those number if not from flixpatrol? "By the way, the current source #44 from Wikitree is the one citing flixpatrol as its source." I will remove that, thanks.
"its popularity on global OTT market washing away the ratings" that still doesn't negate that it got bad viewership in Korea and it like you are trying to dismiss it's failure in Korea. There series hardly trended as #1 in Korea while airing on Netflix. If you want to use the OTT market rating (flixpetrol) then TKEM is not even #1 in Korean of 2020, while Hospital Playlist is. You should present both sides and not downplay and discredit the ratings just because you don't like them.
At cherrypie there is still some edits that needs to be done and IMO I don't find cherrypie to be a relieble person to be editting this wiki page as I personally belief this person is a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust12345 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94:Can you confirm where they got those number if not from flixpatrol? Hello. I've already confirmed that the Top 10 ranking in various countries did not come from flixpatrol, but came from the Netflix app and website itself. Netflix has rolled out the Top 10 feature in its website and app which enables its subscribers to see what is most popular on Netflix in their country https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/see-whats-popular-on-netflix. Each of the countries I enumerated had a local legitimate source mentioning the series was included in the Top 10 of each respective country, and did not even mention flixpatrol.Syntyche S (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Syntyche S: even if it is from Netflix, it cannot be used as it is a Wikipedia: Primary source. It is a Netflix original and Netflix could easily up the numbers, that is why primary sources can’t be used. Also, it is not an achievement cause no one actually knows how Netflix measures this and we don’t know the number of subscribers in each of those countries (Maybe the country has very little subscribers compared to others countries, causing skewed numbers). When other western Netflix original series add it, then we can discuss it here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94: Apparently, 113-year-old media company, Variety (magazine), has partnered with streaming analytics firm FlixPatrol to highlight the most popular shows on Netflix [1][2]. Even Michael M. Scott, director of the Netflix original film Dangerous Lies (2020 film), told Tomas Vyskocil, founder and CEO of FlixPatrol, that he loved what FlixPatrol was doing, and even asked if he could “reverse engineer” how many viewers had watched Dangerous Lies using FlixPatrol’s algorithms. [3] Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page of Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, cites FlixPatrol as the source of its ranking in multiple regions.
FlixPatrol is an analytics streaming company which considers in its algorithm the ranking and subscriber numbers of different streaming platforms, including the “country power” of each region. [3] Considering the real-time availability of streaming data, streaming platforms and analytics streaming companies are able to update its charts on a daily basis.
But unlike TV ratings, which provide transparency about TV performance across broadcast networks, there is no universal streaming metric yet that is calculated by an objective third party. Nevertheless, analytics companies are developing their own unique approaches to calculate the popularity of a show or movie as well as analyzing the people watching them. [3] Until an industry standard is created to measure the success of a show or movie, the work of analytics companies such as FlixPatrol is the next best secondary source as to the gauge of a show's popularity. Syntyche S (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94:"Personally, I see Flix Patrol as not an official chart..." I'm sorry to say, but what's written there are only based on opinions. What I cited here are based on more recent facts from sources you can check. Flixpatrol having a partnership with the 113-year-old media company Variety (magazine) says enough about its reliability.
"...unreliable as the data fluctuates based on what is being watched now..." This is the very nature of streaming shows. Considering the real-time availability of streaming data, streaming platforms and analytics streaming companies are able to update its charts on a daily basis.
"...can't see any evidence that it is reliable such as a list of staff or information on who runs the site - it seems to be faceless." FlixPatrol has a founder and CEO, Tomas Vyskocil, who Dangerous Lies (2020 film) director Michael M. Scott even asked to do some “reverse engineering” to determine the number of viewers of his film.
"I'd say its unreliable, plus it's also problematic as it updates its lists every day..."::: Again, based on an opinion, and again, this is the very nature of streaming services.
FlixPatrol was decided to be unreliable here solely because of "The King," when it is used as reference by other shows and organizations. Measuring streaming shows is an emerging industry, and so it is best to keep up with recent developments on such. Syntyche S (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CJ HealthCare logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, I made some more changes to The Reception section of The King Eternal Monarch for the following reasons:
I re-removed redundant mention about struggling with ratings. This one section mentioned it twice, making it appear Wikipedia is ramming that fact down readers' throats. In any case, Korean industry insiders have already conceded that local viewership is not anymore a key metric in evaluating the success of Kdramas so talking too much about ratings here when there is already a Ratings section is redundant and excessive. I also re-arranged paragraphs to have a more chronological and logical flow. The articles about criticisms were published before those that praised it, thus I placed the former before the latter. This also makes sense logically, underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end. The IBTimes article about the drama's performance was re-added. The information in that IBTimes report is consistent with that of the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine. Besides, IBTimes' criticism was deemed acceptable in the second paragraph of this section.
@Lizzydarcy2008: I'm sorry but all you did is remove an negative statements and only kept the positive. Wikipedia is neutral and is not a fan page (go to twitter and other fan pages if you only want positive info). I know you are a huge fan of the series but that doesn't mean you can remove all negative statements and keep only the positive statements that fit your narrative.
"I re-removed redundant mention about struggling with ratings. This one section mentioned it twice, making it appear Wikipedia is ramming that fact down readers' throats." and then you go and again copy the entire praise from the Reception section to the top without rephrasing, showing you are biased toward positive info only. All the criticism was removed and only positive comments were added, which is wrong.
"In any case, Korean industry insiders have already conceded that local viewership is not anymore a key metric in evaluating the success of Kdramas so talking too much about ratings here when there is already a Ratings section is redundant and excessive." As I said, this is WP:Original research and it is not for me and you to determine, we just have to provide the info of both sides.
"I also re-arranged paragraphs to have a more chronological and logical flow. The articles about criticisms were published before those that praised it, thus I placed the former before the latter. This also makes sense logically, underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end." You only separated paragraphs making multiple sentences on each line, which is wrong. It doesn't not have to be chronological, there is no dates or timelines for it to need to be chronological. It should flow better and not be cut to multiple sentences on different line. Also, you are using your opinion too much (WP:Original research) by saying "underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end." The series was still a failure to critics and it was not bad press that made the drama have low viewership. Critics criticized a lot of aspect such as directing and the screenwriting, but you keep removing that and attempt to write that only controversy and bad press caused it to loss viewership which is your opinion that is not supported by any news articles. See other criticisms that came after the series's end: https://www.news1.kr/articles/?3964103 and https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20200611080700005?input=1195m It is not bad press, it is genuine criticisms from real critics. There are tons of articles about it, but you want to keep only the positive.
"The information in that IBTimes report is consistent with that of the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine." the info came from flixpetrol, which should not be allowed. I did not look at Global Hallyu Issue Magazine, but if the info is from flixpetrol, it needs to be removed. Edit: I looked at Global Hallyu Issue Magazine and under the graphs you refer to, they were citing Netflix which never released the official numbers and it is safe to say they got those from flixpetrol thinking it is official number. Flixpetrol claims "Ranking points are not associated with the streaming platforms and they do not represent the actual numbers of viewings or sales." Moreover, the series is not even in the top 10 anymore on flixpetrol and it is not trending now except #10 in Malaysia, showing how unreliable that website it as the data changes daily. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on CJ HealthCare, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CJ HealthCare logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, thanks for adding South Korea viewers per episode (millions) charts in a few South Korean TV Series page like It's Okay To not Be okay, Hospital Playlist, Crash Landing On You. I really curious is there charts data taken form AGB Nielsen website too? cause i never met in the AGB Nielsen website mentioned about viewers amont per episode in millions. If you are pleased, maybe I can help to add the charts on other South Korean TV series pages too like The World of the Married (ratings presentation format in this page made like a western series tv rating presentation where Stranger South Korean TV series is also has ratings presentation format like this so i'm not sure if there won't be any contradiction later when it comes to inserting a chart there actually), Sky Castle, etc. Thanks before. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update: I checked the Nielsen's website and the number of viewers per episode was only added starting January 2017. They did not measure it prior to that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya:, there is no need for different colors on each page, there is now a default color so use it. I saw many different editors keep changing the colors to the one they prefer, so I asked for a defult color from the one who made the template and now we have one. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94: Oh okay if there's default color now. I use different color for different TV series to differ one TV series from other TV series. But if there's default color it's okay. I think Seokgjin must know about this too. Thanks for the information. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, it means the highest number was taken, instead of each parts’ number. That is okay, too. If the show is labeled 16 episodes with 2 parts, then use the highest number between the parts that aired that day. But if it is labeled 32 episodes, then use numbers from both parts. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CherryPie94 like Seokgjin i confuse too about the table format from the text "in table above" or when the text below is part of the table cause user Marchrain13 always change the format (mostly delete colspan) in some Korean drama pages and said it "fix typo" without discussion with other editors seems like format just follow what he / she like? Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, if you are going for proper tables, the text should be part of the table either on top or under it as it is a legend, see Image. The red/blue number explanation is only relevant to the table and should be part of it as a legend, just like all images on Wikipedia and other tables, see:Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Marchrain13, please see this. Just because it is being done wrong on the Korean pages, it doesn’t mean we can’t fix that now. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blue numbers represent the lowest ratings and the red numbers represent the highest ratings. NR denotes that the series did not rank in the top 20 daily programs on that date. N/A denotes that the rating is not known.
The blue numbers represent the lowest ratings and the red numbers represent the highest ratings
NR denotes that the series did not rank in the top 20 daily programs on that date.
N/A denotes that the rating is not known.
@CherryPie94: I'm changing my edits back to have "proper" tables, but I don't think we should use the < br > feature otherwise it doesn't look right on some devices (such as smartphones). - Seokgjin (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion on that talk page should end because it is too long and takes too much time. I was a little annoyed that I had already voted and i kept mentioned in discussions. Can it just end because the results of the survey also show who the winner is. because in my opinion if it is left uncovered as we see it will not seem finished. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request you to check these pages if everything is right or if changes are needed. Although I have been cautious and alert there are chances of mistakes. Please inform me anything that you wish. Thank you. Revolutionery (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SBS Plus logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
well because i added page after i sent you and do you heard jung in's case when 16 month old toddler who died after 10 months of abuse by hands of adoptive parents and police's failure to noticed the report it caused in outrage in South Korea and celebrities include Jimin of BTS, i decide added this wiki page ,sorry about my grammar just learn this by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Studio Dragon logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, I intend to take the article nominate for Good Article status, for the very least to have a DYK on the main page, hopefully by her anniversary or birthday. Being the next editor with with significant authorship according to xtools, I would like to invite you to assist through the nomination process. Let me know your thoughts about this. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Partners for Justice poster.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Partners for Justice poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:KeyEast logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Main title card for Pachinko.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Main title card for Pachinko.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Greetings,
before ongoing on the edit-war, let's solve the dispute on the talkpage first. Usually, the edits which change the topic, unless they are clearly false, should be justified first. YOU may also remember WP:EP, before engaging in this dispute. Maybe we should also talk about WP:OR again. If this edit war continues, and my objections are further ignored, I won't resitate to consult an admin regarding that matter. It is fine to have a deviant opinnion, but keeping on with edits while no resolution has been made and no conensus reached, is bad style. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion
Hi CherryPie94, and thanks for seeking out a third opinion for Laylat al-Raghaib. I removed/decline your request, as we customarily remove them after six days pass without a volunteer accepting the case. For this listing, it was also not clear which talk page section the opinion was requested for, and the most likely candidate appears to have three people involved already. If local discussion can't result in consensus, and there's a dispute that only two editors are participating in, please feel free to post at WP:3O again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hessa (name), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi CherryPie94, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
