Wikipedia

Talk:Iris (South Korean TV series)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleIris (South Korean TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Synopsis, now "Plot"

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are two issues at hand. Firstly, the synopsis (or what was once the synopsis, and now the "plot") has gotten far, far too long. Secondly, a synopsis is meant to be brief and give an overview--this "plot" we have now is a summary, albeit a very, very long one. Articles should be readable in one sitting. The old synopsis was some 433 words. The current "plot" section is 3,387. While it would serve as a fine write-up for a fansite or something along those lines, I do not believe this is really what would best serve the article. For now, I'll revert it to its state when it received GA and request we discuss the matter here first. StartFromZero (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Episode ratings

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As MS contended, I'm not sure that the sources are applicable with the others that have been included here, but beyond that, I'm not convinced that the information is encyclopedic in nature. The article already contains bookends for the ratings and mentions of it throughout, so specifically listing them all doesn't seem to substantially improve or even compliment the information on the article. StartFromZero (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see. You inlcuded the ratings in a summary smart. I should try that. Thanks. 189.90.240.21 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Title capitalization

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This series is not known as "Iris." In the fabric of the story, we are lead to believe it is likely an acronym that has yet to be revealed. Given that virtually every promotional material and mention of the series mentions it as "IRIS", I am not of the opinion that it should be lowercased. This would be akin to making "NATO" to "Nato", as this should not fall under the general typesetting argument that is so common on other Asian media (in reference to randomly capitalized words in song titles, etc).

Maybe think of it this way: If those media releases were made stateside and lowercased (for example, a tracklisting of a Japanese pop album, where they are rampant with their random capitalizing and lowercasing for no reason other than those of styling), it would be justified because those words are not normally seen in that manner. However, in this case, we are rarely going to instinctively lowercase a title that appears to have significance outside of the general meaning.

Please do not revert without discussing it. Thank you. StartFromZero (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unless it is stated in the show or in a source that "IRIS" is an acronym for something then the page belongs at "Iris", until it is revealed. NATO is an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whereas "IRIS" hasn't been identified as an acryomn only a styling chosen by the creators. See WP:CAPS and MOS:TM for further explanation. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am familiar with WP:CAPS. The problem here, and the issue with expanding the article with sources that would meet the optimum criteria, is that many of the native sources are in Korean. Thus, many English ones are in translation. How should we handle it? I am fluent in Korean and am able to translate any pages as necessary, but this is a tricky situation. I would like to note that some of the information isn't really debatable (such as the wins at the 2009 KBS awards), and that article-within-article sourcing is not uncommon (see 24 (TV series)). StartFromZero (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then post the original Korean sources. While English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources. Especially when the topic is from a foreign country and English sources are not as easy to come across. Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources as stated by WP:V, so if the thing about the movie is true then it should not be hard to find a source from a news site. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sounds fine. I'll post information on the ratings, sequels, awards, and movie tonight. And yes, Wiki articles are naturally not acceptable sources, but I was more referring to the lack of citations in the header of the 24 article in the final paragraph (which is much the same as what was here for the Daesang at least). I'll get to work on it, hopefully we can get it into top form in the end. StartFromZero (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
In the lead section of the article sources are not needed if and only if the information is included in another part of the article and is sourced. So that is the reason the lead section does not have any sources. MS (Talk|Contributions) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
All proper, confirmed sources added from mainstream Korean media outlets. Assuming you are content with those, my next focus will be to revise the synopsis, as it's a little unbalanced at the moment. With further developments concerning Athena and the like, I'll be sure cite Korean articles. Thanks for the cooperation; let me know how it is. StartFromZero (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
For reference in the event this discussion comes up again, I am in agreement with leaving the title in non-caps and no longer support my original position. StartFromZero (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Responding to this article's GAN

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Pandacomics (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

disputing split

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is not enough info on the movie, why should it be split off?? 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 18:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Removing it. StartFromZero (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iris (TV series). 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:

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) 19:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Iris (TV series). 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:

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) 22:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iris (TV series). 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:

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) 13:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iris_(South_Korean_TV_series)&oldid=1236025605"