Talk:KPop Demon Hunters

Question about lead paragraphs

I'm really not a huge fan of the way the first three paragraphs start with "KPop Demon Hunters (something)". I know I have the required permissions to edit but I don't think I've ever made a change to a featured article's text before.

Could this maybe be changed to "the film" and "it" in paragraphs two and three? It just feels like a lot of repetition, and also a bit eye catching. But given that the article has already passed featured status, maybe there's no need? JordyGrey _talk🧸 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The first _four_ paragraphs all start by repeating the film title KPop Demon Hunters in full. SomeMany editors think it is a good idea to repeat the full film title KPop Demon Hunters in every paragraph. So much so that an article can get all the way to {{Featured article}} status before someone like yourself points out how strange and repetitive it is to keep repeating the full film title KPop Demon Hunters over and over again, and I am so inured to it I barely notice anymore. I happen to think that most normal ordinary readers will not have already forgotten the full film title KPop Demon Hunters after only 3 or 4 paragraphs, but that has not been a popular opinion. In this case I think editors could safely use a pronoun once in a while and for example replace "KPop Demon Hunters received acclaim for its animation" with "It received acclaim for its animation," but someone else will probably insist on changing it back and repeating the full film title KPop Demon Hunters over and over again. The article body too could probably avoid writing out the full film title KPop Demon Hunters about half as much and not lose anything, it might even help improve the readability. (I do remember one editor User:AndyFielding gently mocking Wikipedia editors for being what he called "pronoun-phobic", it was annoying but he wasn't wrong.)

Editors might consider reading the text of the article out loud and perhaps do some rephrasing to avoid repeating the full film title KPop Demon Hunters quite so often. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi JordyGrey; Good to hear from you. Regarding your comments then I'm reading KDH spelled out a total of once for each paragraph in the lede; that doesn't in and of itself seem excessive. What's your line of thinking here. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the phrase being used once per paragraph. It's mostly that the phrase that appears first in all of the paragraphs. If there was variation in each paragraph, i.e. changed to "the film" and "it" in paragraphs two and three, I think it would look better. Hopefully that clarifies things :) JordyGrey _talk🧸 02:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Four times in four paragraphs _is excessive_. Once for the entire lead section would be enough, but to my continued disappointment other editors seem to have different opinions on what is good prose and what is an acceptable level of repetition. I am again surprised that editors think this level of repetition is not just acceptable writing but good enough writing for a Featured article. Read it out loud and it should become clearer that it is not good writing to repeat the full title so often. As JordyGrey suggested it would be good write "the film" or "it" occasionally. I hope editors will also address the excessive repetition in the article body too. (I would try to use the full title less than once per section, but due to the nature of hypertext readers could be jumping into the page from anywhere so each section repeating the full film title might be a necessary evil). -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, I'd say that the current lead section does violate MOS:INTRO which says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead...Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions...Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader." I'd say that the current lead doesn't only have the issue with repetition but is honestly too wordy. I'd almost say it should be only 1-2 paragraphs rather than four.

As for "I hope editors will also address the excessive repetition in the article body too", apart from the opening four paragraphs and infobox, the film title is mentioned 41 more times by my count: 1 time in the "Development" sub-section, 1 time in the "Character design" sub-section, 1 time in the "Music" section, six times in the "Release" section, three times in the "Viewership" sub-section, two times in the "Box office" sub-section, six times in the "Critical response" section, 1 time in the "Accolades" sub-section, three times in the "Cultural impact" section, eight times in the "Korean Wave" sub-section, four times in the "Fandom" sub-section, two times in the "Sequel" sub-section, two times in the "Short film" sub-section, two times in the "Other media" section, and 1 time in the "Tour" section. So, the number of mentions of the title should definitely be cut down. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sort of agreeing with Jordy on this, that the lede with a total of one instance of KDH per paragraph seems to be ok. Regarding the text of the rest of the article using KDH more or less as needed, then that seems like a separate topic which should receive its own thread on Talk if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"one instance of KDH per paragraph seems to be ok" This is supposed to be a Featured article, an example of the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. The writing should be better than "ok", it should be more than merely acceptable, a featured article should at least be aiming for good writing. Read the text out loud, and then tell me you really believe it is not horrible stilted and repetitive and the kind of good writing deserving of a Featured article. It is objectively bad writing but unfortunately most of us have been seeing this kind of bad writing in Wikipedia for so long we've come to accept it. Thanks JordyGrey for reminding us the writing can and should be better. - 12:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still agreeing with Jordy on this as being proper. The article was reviewed by multiple authors at FAC and for TFA nearly 40K readers seem to think it is fine. If you see room for an improvement, then make your suggestion here; saying that an article about KDH mentions the title KDH several times seems within the standards of reasonableness. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If you actually read bad writing out loud it should become immediately obvious how awful and repetitive and it is. Repeating the whole title over and over again is excessive, but sadly it passes for "normal" in Wikipedia articles, so reviewers fail to notice it. It takes a person with fresh eyes like Jordy to even see it. It isn't anything new that Wikipedia editors lie to themselves about (or fail to even acknowledge) the difference between good enough and actually good writing. It isn't going to get better if you cannot even acknowledge there is a problem. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Jordy has already left his opinion that the article is in FA condition. If you are making an edit request then you can try the format of making a suggestion of 'change A to B' to make it more clear. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As an update, this recent edit by Jordy resolves my issues with the previous writing. I do think the other mentions of film's name should be cut down, but mainly in... the "Release" section (used six times), "Critical response" section (used six times), "Cultural impact" section (used three times), "Korean Wave" sub-section (used eight times), and "Fandom" sub-section (used four times), by saying something like "the film" or in ways like what Jordy has done. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Plot

@Fruitful Frugal, ErnestKrause, and Jamie Eilat: rather than edit war, let's discuss concerns about phrasing here. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I just find it baffling to purposefully leave out Jinu's role in the Idol Awards' sabotage, it is a vital scene not only in itself but also for the two lead characters of the film. It's not some minor, trivial narrative event. In the plot description for The Two Towers, should it be left unsaid that Saruman is the one responsible for the corruption of Théoden's mind? Of course not. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

But how you rephrased it works for me, I don't even wish to rehash the wording of the other paragraphs I'll leave them alone, I'm fine with how it reads now. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2026

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Wiki Administrators,

I respectfully request the opportunity to contribute to the KPop Demon Hunters wiki as an editor. I am committed to helping maintain the quality and accuracy of the wiki by correcting factual errors, improving grammar and formatting, updating outdated information, and adding well-sourced, verifiable content in accordance with the community's guidelines.

I understand the importance of preserving the reliability of the wiki and will ensure that all of my contributions are supported by credible sources and comply with established editing policies. I am also willing to participate in discussions regarding significant edits and collaborate with other contributors to reach consensus when necessary.

It would be an honor to assist in maintaining the wiki as a comprehensive and dependable resource for the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to be considered for editing access.

Sincerely,

LGamesAdam67 LGamesAdam 67 (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing access for specific pages cannot be granted on a user-by-user basis; rather, editing access for protected pages is based on user group (i.e., edit count and account age). If you are not yet familiar with how page protection on Wikipedia works, feel free to look through Wikipedia:Protection policy, & in particular Wikipedia:Protection policy#Protection levels. Additionally, when making edit requests, please try to detail any specific changes you wish to be made in a "change X to Y" format, along with providing a reliable source if appropriate. Thank you. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

New cover art

The new cover art for the DVD was released here: . Is the new cover art just as good as the original poster, better, or, not as good as the original poster art? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we switch out the current infobox image with the DVD cover art? Bacause release posters are generally preferred as infobox images over physical release covers; the documentation for Template:Infobox film states regarding infobox images that "[i]deally this should be a film poster". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If editors think that the image looks useful then my thoughts were to consider for inclusion in the Home media section of the article. Your comment about the Infobox is accurate, and the image could be alternatively considered if its considered more timely or if there is some other compelling reason for it. Otherwise, I think it might be of use for the Home media section. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If we're not discussing an infobox replacement, I don't think the DVD cover meets the WP:NFCI conditions to be included in the article's body. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I'm now wondering if its worth giving attention to Jaime's suggestion that it might be an updated Infobox image if editors think its good. Possibly it could be used for a month or two until the DVD comes out during the holidays; depends if other editors see it as a good enough image for this. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)