Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

::fwiw (I won't participate in this discussion otherwise; don't ofte edit in this area) I'm not sure where you got the reading that Paper9oll was implying Korean supremacy or exceptionalism. They just have a topic interest in Korean pop culture so are interested in creating local-level policy for the area they care about. I do think the broader MOS should be followed, just thought the implication here was a little sus [[User:Grapesurgeon|grapesurgeon]] (seefooddiet) ([[User talk:Grapesurgeon|talk]]) 13:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::fwiw (I won't participate in this discussion otherwise; don't ofte edit in this area) I'm not sure where you got the reading that Paper9oll was implying Korean supremacy or exceptionalism. They just have a topic interest in Korean pop culture so are interested in creating local-level policy for the area they care about. I do think the broader MOS should be followed, just thought the implication here was a little sus [[User:Grapesurgeon|grapesurgeon]] (seefooddiet) ([[User talk:Grapesurgeon|talk]]) 13:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::English Wikipedia serves a global audience and covers topics from many cultures worldwide. It isn't strictly and exclusively a "Western" encyclopedia just because the word "English" is in its title and/or branding. The broader MOS covers only certain portions of article formatting where consistency is explicitly expected. For areas not directly covered by the broader MOS, including topic and/or cultural deviations such as [[MOS:KO]], advice pages (which are not formal MOS and should not be conflated with one) like WP:FILMOGRAPHY provide guidance and examples but do not mandate strict or rigid interpretations. This approach is consistent with MOS itself, which encourages flexibility, as well as WP:IAR principles, and reasoned interpretation. Moreover, the layout aligns closely with existing WP:FILMOGRAPHY examples, particularly regarding column structure, and is not a radical departure. The main difference is splitting up TV dramas and TV shows (and yes, I believe the discussion on OTT/web series is finished since there is support to combine them into television series tables). The former are scripted storytelling, usually with continuous plots, character development, and specific genres, while the latter are unscripted or loosely scripted, focusing on entertainment, interviews, games, or reality elements. Likewise, if both TV dramas and variety shows were combined into a single ambiguous table sectioned under "Television", would a reader glancing through be able to tell that ''Squid Game: The Challenge'' is a variety show rather than ''Squid Game'', a scripted drama? Without clicking through to the article (and no, I am not going into this debate nor bringing the discussion in this direction), this distinction could easily be missed, reducing clarity and potentially confusing readers. In my neutral opinion, this is neither an improvement nor a benefit for readers. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> [[User:Paper9oll|<span style="background:#f535aa;color:#fff;padding:2px;border-radius:5px">Paper9oll</span>]] <span style="color:#f535aa">([[User talk:Paper9oll|🔔]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paper9oll|📝]])</span>''' 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::English Wikipedia serves a global audience and covers topics from many cultures worldwide. It isn't strictly and exclusively a "Western" encyclopedia just because the word "English" is in its title and/or branding. The broader MOS covers only certain portions of article formatting where consistency is explicitly expected. For areas not directly covered by the broader MOS, including topic and/or cultural deviations such as [[MOS:KO]], advice pages (which are not formal MOS and should not be conflated with one) like WP:FILMOGRAPHY provide guidance and examples but do not mandate strict or rigid interpretations. This approach is consistent with MOS itself, which encourages flexibility, as well as WP:IAR principles, and reasoned interpretation. Moreover, the layout aligns closely with existing WP:FILMOGRAPHY examples, particularly regarding column structure, and is not a radical departure. The main difference is splitting up TV dramas and TV shows (and yes, I believe the discussion on OTT/web series is finished since there is support to combine them into television series tables). The former are scripted storytelling, usually with continuous plots, character development, and specific genres, while the latter are unscripted or loosely scripted, focusing on entertainment, interviews, games, or reality elements. Likewise, if both TV dramas and variety shows were combined into a single ambiguous table sectioned under "Television", would a reader glancing through be able to tell that ''Squid Game: The Challenge'' is a variety show rather than ''Squid Game'', a scripted drama? Without clicking through to the article (and no, I am not going into this debate nor bringing the discussion in this direction), this distinction could easily be missed, reducing clarity and potentially confusing readers. In my neutral opinion, this is neither an improvement nor a benefit for readers. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> [[User:Paper9oll|<span style="background:#f535aa;color:#fff;padding:2px;border-radius:5px">Paper9oll</span>]] <span style="color:#f535aa">([[User talk:Paper9oll|🔔]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paper9oll|📝]])</span>''' 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:All television roles (whether they be old fashioned TV shows that air on a TV network, or shows that are released via streaming) should be included under a common "Television" heading.{{pb}}There's no reason to break them all up into different tables. It's 2025, the common understanding is that Netflix series (and similar) constitute "TV series". [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 00:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)