Talk:Exo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

<!Exo are a South Korean-Chinese boy group 86.134.9.50 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

high demand. Mattstaygold (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane ^talk 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

On April 22, member Tao's father posted a letter through Weibo expressing his sentiments for his son to withdraw from the group and return to China; due to lack of support concerning individual career developments and health issues.

Please change the "withdraw" in that sentence to "withdrawal", as it is currently not grammatically correct in the article (withdraw is a verb, whereas withdrawal is the noun). Pxneapple (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: The sentence seems grammatically correct to me. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence appears fine as it is now. Stickee (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Tao lost his lawsuit, so now he's officially parted ways with EXO. 76.174.35.70 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exo (band). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180844/http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=2013&hitYear=2013&termGbn=year to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=2013&hitYear=2013&termGbn=year

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) 11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes to line-up

The lineup has been modified adding (Inactive) to Lay, which is incorrect. This change should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffessss (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Only names can be added to the infobox, no labels, years or anything else. However, it should be mentioned under 2017: The War That Lay will not participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.35.70 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lock

Not sure where else to ask this tbh, but can this page be locked/protected again, please? JET 20 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is already permanently protected. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

2017: The War

Exo in June 2017 On May 27 and 28, 2017, Exo concluded the Exo'rdium tour with two concerts at the Seoul Olympic Stadium. They were the fifth and youngest K-Pop act to hold a concert in the 72,000 seat stadium, following JYJ, H.O.T., G.o.d and YG Entertainment. Tickets for the first and second date were sold out within 20 and 30 minutes respectively.

Exo's fourth studio album The War and its lead single "Ko Ko Bop" were released on July 18, 2017.The album became the most pre-ordered and fastest-selling album in the history of South Korean music, surpassing the records set by Ex'Act. It topped the Billboard World Album Chart and the South Korean Gaon Album Chart, and entered Billboard 200 at number 87. "Ko Ko Bop" topped the Gaon Digital Chart and reached number 2 on the Billboard World Digital Songs Chart. On August 15, 2017, The War became Exo's fourth consecutive studio album to have sold over a million copies in just 24 days since release without repackaged yet, making them the first South Korean act with four consecutive million-selling albums and currently the highest physical album selling with 8,571,757+ sales and it keeps on increasing day by day. K-netz called them "Daesang Harvester" however since the newly released song "Ko Ko Bop" has been topping charts since release they are also named as "The New Digital Monster". Oohaeri (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is just a section copy. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of original article

In the article, it states: "Exo's fourth studio album The War was released on July 18, 2017.[100] The album had received 807,235 pre-orders, surpassing their own record of 660,000 for Ex'Act." This is an incorrect interpretation of the original source article.[1] It implies that EXO held the record prior to the War, but this was just their personal record. The actual record was held by BTS for 'You Never Walk Alone' at 713,063 copies, which EXO beat as well.[2]
I suggest that it instead becomes: "Exo's fourth studio album The War was released on July 18, 2017.[100] The album has received 807,235 pre-orders, surpassing their personal record of 660,000 for Ex'Act and the previous record of 713,063 held by BTS for their album 'You Never Walk Alone'. [3] [4] Angelflare85 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing is correct to mean Exo's personal record. 124.191.157.71 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Solo endeavours

I’m just curious, considering all members have their own articles, is the “solo endeavours” part of the article really necessary? I understand having a section about Exo CBX because that is directly related to Exo, but what they do solo isn’t necesarily relevant to the group Alexanderlee (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please change EXOs profile pic its too old as well as blur

Change pp By EXO fan (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You can only use a picture if it is in the public domain: you can't just use any picture that you find on the internet, because it is probably copyright, and against Wikipedia policy to use it - see WP:IUP. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also its EXO not Exo all the official EXO accounts have EXO as their name change it too

Change it to EXO By EXO fan (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We dont use official stylziations, see WP:TMRULES Snowflake91 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Discography.

I was wondering, in the discography category, shouldn't "Chinese albums" be added as well, and not just Korean? Sorry if this comes off as a dumb question, but I thought it IS kind of important since releasing music in both Korean/Chinese is an big part of EXO. JET 20 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Request: Permission to edit/update this page

Hello,

Requesting permission to update/edit this article. There are a lot of things that are not updated; and some parts have missing info. Examples: 1. 'Smile For U' campaign - began with 'Sing For You' album and still ongoing. Full donation for Winter Albums (Sing For You, For Life, Universe) & a portion of the revenue for full & repackaged albums (EX'Act, Lotto, The War, The Power of Music) 2. EXO's 5-year daesang streak (currently 24 and counting *25 according to some sources*) 3. EXO's group & individual affiliations 4. Olympics-related info

Also, some platinum certifications are missing/removed from the article. Will really appreciate it if you could give me permission to edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpsd22 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017

Hello , I want permission to edit EXO'S wiki page , due to the new information of winning more daesangs and winning album of the year and a record Breaking 5th Year (win) In A Row At 2017 Mnet Asian Music Awards (MAMA) Thank You MythicalKaplan (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@MythicalKaplan:  Not done. You've added an edit request, which is just that: you're saying what changes to make. An edit request is not a request for permission to edit. CityOfSilver 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Requesting for permission to edit this page. This has not been updated to include several updates on their achievements as well as their "Smile for U" campaign (an ongoing campaign in ALL their albums since Sing For You. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpsd22 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rmpsd22: Smile For U is a joint S.M. and UNICEF campaign, it isn’t “exo’s campaign”Alexanderlee (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I'm just pointing out that this part: "In 2015 Exo participated in "Smile for U", a joint S.M. Entertainment and UNICEF project that aids music educational charitable work for children in Asia. Part of the proceeds of their second winter album, Sing for You, and their third full album, EX'ACT, were donated to the campaign.[160][161] " should be edited to include that this applies to succeeding albums as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpsd22 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

I'm an EXO fan, and I really want to add and change something because we found someone has been deleting some part. We EXO-L already discuss, and some can't edit, but I try to ask you for a request to edit. I hope you agree, thank you and have a nice day. Exojjang (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Exo (band. It is not clear what you are requesting. If you are asking for the technical ability to edit that article, then you need to wait until you have been granted confirmed status. If you are asking for the protection to be reduced so that unconfirmed users can edit it, then you first need to speak with Diannaa, the administrator that protected this page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

EXO-CBX Name Styling

Should EXO-CBX be written as Exo-cbx, in keeping with the styling of the name Exo? Or as Exo-Cbx? And should a note be made about it's styling as there is a note for the name Exo? Not sure about the rules in this area. NicklausAU (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be stylized as Exo-CBX as the CBX stands for the members stage name initials. I would personally move the page to said title format. Abdotorg (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of platinum certifications

Please restore the platinum certifications that EXO has achieved. I've replied under exo discography and attached proof of certifications. Please take notice. Prachi Rustagi (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prachi Rustagi: I don't see any messages from you at Talk:Exo discography. Can you post your proof there? Random86 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you. please if you can coordinate to fanbase for proof. it will be a big help Coledrei (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

EXO AWARDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

exo holds the most awarded group/artist in the history of kpop with 265 awards as a group Coledrei (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thats nice I guess, but we dont include every little fancruft crap they receive, all notable awards are already listed at List of awards and nominations received by Exo. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinions of merging sections

Hi. Most K-pop related articles including articles which are listed as GA such as Girls' Generation and Big Bang, categorise their activities within a two or three time frame. Being listed as GA, we can presume that these articles are what we can benchmark against. Currently, I find that there are too many details listed under each year, some are not even expanded and being left as a paragraph with a few sentences. Perhaps we can follow the above-mentioned styles by listing it in a two year period (e.g., 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and so on). This will enable us to try and cut down on some details but at the same time, being explained thoroughly.

For example, I think that the three albums (Exodus, Ex'Act, and The War) can be significantly trimmed. Instead of a paragraph explaining the original album and another another paragraph explaining the repackaged album, we can just remove details and put it as only one paragraph. Within the paragraph, we should only state important details like the concert tours, awards, sales and ranking.

Eg, 2012—2013: (title - I recommend not to list their album names as it lacks creativity and impact)

Exo-K and Exo-M released their debut single, "Mama", on April 8 followed by an EP Mama, on April 9. The two sub-groups would be promoting the album separately in two countries. On April 8, Exo-K performed on South Korea's music program The Music Trend, while Exo-M made their debut in China's Top Chinese Music Awards on the same day. The mandarin version of Mama reached number two on China's Sina Album Chart, while the Korean album peaked at number one on the Gaon Album Chart and number eight on the Billboard World Albums Chart. Prior to their debut, Exo-K and Exo-M released two singles, which were "What Is Love" and "History". The former peaked at number 88 on South Korea's Gaon Single Chart, while the latter peaked at number 68 on the Gaon Single Chart and number six on China's Sina Music Chart. To promote both prologue singles, a concert for the group was held in Seoul's Olympic Stadium on March 31, which was attended by approximately 3,000 fans. The group was awarded Best New Asian Artist Group at the 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards, and the Newcomer Award at the Golden Disk Awards. In addition, Exo-M received the Most Popular Group Award at the 2013 Top Chinese Music Awards.

One year later, the group released the first studio album, XOXO on June 3, 2013 with two versions, a Korean-language and a Mandarin-language edition. Unlike Mama era when Exo-K and Exo-M had separate promotions, XOXO was jointly promoted; mainly in South Korea. Exo recorded together for the album's lead single, "Wolf", but the rest of the album tracks were recorded separately. The two versions collectively peaked at number one on the Billboard World Album Chart a week after release. A repackaged version of XOXO, titled Growl, was released on August 5, 2013 with three additional tracks. The reissue's lead single, "Growl", was released on August 1, 2013. "Growl" peaked at number three on Billboard's Korea K-Pop Hot 100 and number two on the Gaon's Singles chart. As of December 2013, all versions of XOXO have collectively sold over one million copies, making Exo the first Korean artist to sell over a million copies of one album in twelve years and breaking the record for being the fastest-selling K-pop act. XOXO was named Album of the Year at the 2013 Mnet Asian Music Awards, and was the best selling album of South Korea in 2013.

Exo's second EP Miracles in December was officially released on December 9, 2013 as a special winter album through South Korean commercial outlets and online music stores. Exo jump-started album promotions through their reality show Exo's Showtime, which premiered on November 28, 2013 on the cable channel MBC Every 1. (needs to expand)

-This is just my suggestion. I will be trying to edit extensively in my sandbox and if you guys support it, we can revamp the entirely and work towards a better Exo page. I am not implying that the current method is bad, but I feel that improvements can be made. Requiem II (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree: personally I don’t think the albums or songs need to much detail besides the release date, peak charting positions and basic information. Most if not all of their albums have an article and bulk information should be in the albums article or song article mostly. Information about music shows should really be in the albums article under the “promotion” section, in my opinion. Alexanderlee (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. I've been thinking about doing this for a while. The only difficulty will be selecting significant junctures in their career... for example:

2011-2012: Formation and debut

2013-2015: Commercial Success and (something referring to 3 members leaving)

But then what would you say for 2016-present? Continued commercial success? They kept selling well... Critical success? They won a bunch of awards... International Recognition? They charted a lot more in other countries... All the possible titles would be pretty hard to decide, and debatable to say the least. NicklausAU (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Add more about EXO

Hi please update Exo page they have received more awards they are also thr first and only kpop group to have tthere song power play at Dubai fountain they performed the closing ceremony at the 2018 Olympics they are the first kpop group to have a Medel made for them there are lots of other amazing things they did and also the members it's important to update it for also new Exols Minseokowns me (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Olympics performance is mentioned in the History section, but everything else is irrelevant really. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dubai Fountain is literally the first thing that’s mentioned in the 2018 section. Alexanderlee (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Images/Pictures

So I am terrible at finding images with the right licence for Wikipedia. If anyone else could find any for the years 2016-2018 it would be appreciated, as there are currently none. NicklausAU (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@NicklausAU: I notice you’ve uploaded a new picture to the article, and you’ve stated “own work” as the source. Did you take the picture yourself? If so that’s fine, but if you didn’t then it isn’t your own work and you have to find the person who took the picture, ask them for permission, and list them as the source ; possibly more but I’m not familiar with the policies. If you can’t find the photographer or they don’t consent, the image can not be used. Alexanderlee (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is my own image. NicklausAU (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting consensus or opinions

Hi. I've decided to change the entire history section and I need consensus or your opinions. I will appreciate it if you can check my proposed change here. I do not think my way of presenting is the best, hence I am open to suggestions. My main concerns are the timeline/ year, titles, and excess information. I am sure some contributors have their own way of grouping the activities together; it will be great if you can share your way of doing so that we can look for the optimal solution that satisfies most parties. Based on my proposed change, 2015—16 is the most problematic subsection as there are too much information. My proposed titles are also pretty common in other Kpop pages, thus, coming up with new creative or unique ideas will be great. Hoping to hear your suggestions, criticisms, and feedback.

PS. Reliable sources, images, vocabulary can be put aside first. Requiem II (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to lack of responses, I went ahead and implemented the changes. If you want to refer to the old version, you can find it at my sandbox here. As mentioned in the edit summaries, I merely removed excess information as per WP:EXCESS, and added a little more information at the formation section. Reliable sources can be added when found. Also, if you feel the timeframes are weird, I recommend you to see Girls' Generation article which has overlapping years as well. This is not uncommon as there is really too much information. In my opinion, different timeframes should have around 4 or 5 detailed paragraphs. Anything more than that will usually occupy more than a screen's length, which isn't ideal. Any questions relating to my edits, please state them here. Requiem II (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Requiem II: Hi Requiem, some of the edits you added have been flagged by a bot as being copied from thekpopwiki.com. If you used another source, please let me know, as kpopwiki does not appear to be published under a license that we can use. Thanks, Crow^Caw 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Crow: I actually did not use that website to browse for any information. Are you able to see which edits are being copied? My guesses are that the edits were already present in this Wiki, but was later copied to the kpopwiki by other users. When I removed the original edits and pasted the revised version, I think that Wikipedia detected it. My sandbox here has the previous version of this page and if you compare, I mostly deleted stuff and added a few content, which is referenced with the other members' Wikipedia pages. Requiem II (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! It looks much less messy and splurging now. I wonder if you had any thoughts as to an additional name for the 2016-2017 section? Those departures weren't much of an event considering the members had already left unofficially. I was thinking about mentioning the beginning of more significant solo activities, as it was around about 2016 that many of the group's members really started branching out (CBX, Lay solo, movies etc). Not describing their results, that can be left for individual pages, but that they happened. It seems like the most significant career move within those yearsNicklausAU (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Their solo activities and CBX all mentioned in a separate section right under the history section, there’s no need to have it in both. Besides, the history section is for the history of the group as a whole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderlee (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is probably not necessary, but the title can be modified so that it would not seem that the departures are the most significant events in 2016-17. For CBX and Lay's solo debut, it was already mentioned in the subunit and solo endeavours section. Other solo activities like movies or variety show cast members are not really needed as it was stated in their own pages. Requiem II (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see what you both mean, but the title does need to be changed. Their legal departures barely lasted a single news cycle. It was pretty much a non-event. Surely there is something we can think of that is more significant. Also, it is worth nothing that "Solo endeavors" is used to mention the point in time where members of a group started more solo activities. See Big Bang (Good Article). NicklausAU (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @NicklausAU: I, too, do agree that the title needs to be changed. We should probably wait for a while till other contributors rename the title to a more suitable one. I personally feel that adding the 'solo endeavours' term should be a last resort, as it would seem repetitive to have another same term used as a section header. I came up with an example: 2006–2012: Formation and debut/ 2013–2014: Success with first studio album, Kris' and Luhan's lawsuit/ 2015–2016: Critical acclaim and Tao's lawsuit/ 2016–2017: Continued success, Kris' and Luhan's departures/ 2018–present: International stardom and Japanese debut. The international stardom part may seem a bit exaggerated (*laughs*), but performing in Olympics is an extremely global event. Also, the amount of news articles and titles such as Nation's representatives, and probably quoting some reporters' dialogues may be substantial enough. Generally, I prefer to not following other pages stringently, but instead coming up with creative terms. Perhaps, we can change 'solo endeavours' to something unique and exclusive, or, we can improve on my proposed idea. As long as the tweaked title makes sense and it is relating to the activities in that year, I will support it. Requiem II (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Requiem II: I was just going through and trying to add years to some of the history sections where it just starts with the month and day, and I noticed that 2016 is mentioned in 2 sections. 2015-2016 (which contains only 2015 information) and 2016-2017 (which contains all of the 2016 information). I would say delete 2016 from the title of the first one, but then that would leave 2015 alone, so should we split up 2016 and 2017 to make it 2015-2016 then 2017-present? NicklausAU (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• @NicklausAU: Now that you mentioned it, I just realised it too. I think that putting all information in 2016 and merging it with 2015 may not be ideal. Based on the edit preview, it would look cluttered, unless further trimming is done. I have two other suggestions regarding this. First, we can put up the Ex'Act details in the 2015-16 section, and leave everything as it is. This way of presenting is somewhat similar to Girls' Generation which is a good article. Of course, trimming can be done as well. The second way will be to rename 2015-16 to solely 2015, and leave the other years untouched. It may seem inconsistent with other years, but I feel that there is no hard and fast rule on how the headings are arranged. Most individual Kpop artists arrange the information differently. What are your thoughts? Requiem II (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Requiem II: I think it would be fine either way, by making it only 2015 or splitting the 2016 content. My only concern with splitting 2016 like that and moving album information to the 2015-2016 section would be that the album and repack (1st 2016 paragraph) was july and august. The next paragraph about the legal departures starts in july as well, which would mean the 2015-2016 section has content until august 2016 and the 2016-2017 section starts with content in july 2016 ? Is that backwards time jump a bit too confusing to the average reader? The title might look slight out of place, but I think the overall structure would be better by making that section 2015 alone. NicklausAU (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Growl sales/download figures

I posted this across on the discography talk page but so far no one has responded so I am posting it here as well in the hopes that one of the editors for both pages may see it and reply.
This regards the derivation of the 2,026,000 downloads figure for the Growl single. Upon checking in detail the 13 listed citation links in the reference section the information does not correspond.

• The 2013, 2014 and 2015 year end chart links listed all direct to the same 2013 year end chart where Growl is at #24 with 1,180,332 downloads. There are no actual 2014 or 2015 charts linked.
• The Week 1, Week 2, Feb 2016 and Mar 2016 links that follow do not show Growl to be in the top 100 on any of those charts either so there are no visible figures that can be taken.
• The Week 20 2016 link (an archived one) does show Growl at #363 with 3937 downloads, taking the total to 1,184,269 (incl the 2013 chart numbers).
• The Week 24, Week 25, Week 31, Week 32 and Week 39, 2016 links that follow, again do not show Growl anywhere on the 1-100 ranking.

Are there secondary archived pages where Growl charted outside of the top 100 that have not been included to back up the 2M+ number? My preliminary searches have not turned up any reliable sources/articles to support this total figure. As one of the aims of wikipedia is to provide accurate information to its readers, I believe clarification as to how these chart numbers were put together, and justification as to why they are being maintained as correct, is warranted. - Zen A wikiwork (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Discography

Ss112: Based on other K-pop Wikipedia pages, it is a norm for groups to separate their albums according to languages. After returning to Wikipedia after a break, I was surprised to see Exo's albums under the discography section being merged. Girls' Generation and Big Bang, whose articles have attained Good Article status were crafted this way too. Also, I feel that the note was added by a user who was a new contributor that had not looked at other K-pop pages on how they are being handled. Even the phrasing is grammatically incorrect, hence, I ignored the note. Apologies for not stating explicitly on my edit summary. I have now went ahead to change the information. If you still insist on separating it, I would suggest bringing up this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, so that there can be a fruitful discussion. By no means should Exo's albums be separated if other Good Article and K-pop pages put it in such a way. Requiem II (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, separating albums by their languages help to improve clarity. Exo was introduced as a group performing music in Korean and Chinese. Since they even ventured to the Japanese market, it would be necessary to record such a change. After referring to Exo discography, which is the main article for the section, the albums were also divided according to languages. It has been a staple across K-pop discography pages as well. Requiem II (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Requiem II: you're acting as if I'm the one who separated the albums by language in the first place. I wasn't. I reverted you because you ignored the note, and there is obviously disagreement from the user who placed it there. It does not matter that whoever wrote the note was grammatically incorrect in what they wrote; you clearly understood what they were talking about. Also, in future, you do not revert a user and then say "refer to the talk page". You go to to the talk page first to gain consensus before reverting again per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You're citing other examples as if this matters. It really doesn't in most cases—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These other articles being good articles certainly didn't hinge on the fact that they separated which language albums were recorded in. The note was evidently placed there for a reason, so it appears some other users disagree with you. I've now discovered the page initially separated based on the language they were recorded in anyway, but still, if you run into further opposition you should not be reverting instantly and telling others to take it to the talk page as if your way is the only way. No need to ping me again; I'm following the page. Ss112 11:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There must be a sort of misunderstanding here. If it seems that I am targeting you, then I am sorry. I didn't realise my words could bring such a heavy implication and be interpreted in such a way. I did a thorough check on the past edits and I realised that the user who added the note did not specify anything in the edit summary nor was there any consensus in the talk page. Moreover, when user A changed the information, another user reverted it without stating any reason as well. I know that such data are no longer relevant but it would be beneficial if this issue can be talked through in the past. I'm also aware that one simply does not make any changes before consensus is made, as I had went through a similar process when I am editing the history section of this page. I only reverted your edit because I deemed it to be a simple problem and consensus was not needed. On that note, I am sorry as well; I was not expecting this issue to be so complex. Last but not least, I would take my time to familiarise myself with the help pages you mentioned so that I would not commit the same mistakes henceforth. Requiem II (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Orentbyte. I noticed that you merged the studio albums into one heading instead of separating it. Since you did not adequately explain in the edit summary, may I know your rationale behind it? I encourage you to share your thoughts regarding this so we can achieve consensus. Requiem II (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

On a similar topic, would it be more correct to say "Korean and Mandarin Albums", considering that all of those albums were also released in Mandarin Chinese? Or nah? NicklausAU (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

I would like to request the change of Exo to EXO, since EXO is the actual format of the band name not Exo. 82.61.33.241 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia context, Exo should be used. You can find out more here. Requiem II (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

History section headings

What is "recognition" referring to in the 2018 section? The Olympics or the medal things? If it's the Olympics, it should read "international recognition" as the worldwide media attention was the most significant part of the performance. If it's referring to medal things, then I think it should be removed as those were less significant to their career than their Olympics performance.

Also, I would Like to remove the current 2016-2017 heading, as the legal/official departures of Kris and Luhan were not a defining event for Exo's careers of that time period. It was a minor story that lasted one news cycle, reported by only a small number of news outlets. Instead, I would replace it with one or 2 things. Firstly, the mention of their increased presence overseas following the release of their 2017 album, the war. It saw them chart in dozens of countries they had never charted before, of which notable chart positions can be seen on their discography page. This increase in success overseas is widely reported by Korean and foreign news outlets alike multiple times throughout the year. The words would be some combination of international or overseas and success or expansion, all established phrases used in the history headings in articles for other kpop artists such as Girls Generation (GA). And secondly, I would mention the rise in "solo endeavors" as although this is the group page, a significant shift occurred in 2016, where many of the members expanded their own solo works, such as the subunit and solo music, film and tv releases. Describing details of these activities can be left to other articles, but they do represent a significant moment in Exo's overall career. This is again an established subheading used in other kpop artist articles such as Big Bang (GA).

I'm looking for feedback or alternative viewpoints before I made these edits. It would include changing of the section headings and the addition of 1-2 sentences in the section to add explanation. NicklausAU (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the change of headings. The recognition should refer to the Olympics performance, hence adding the word 'international' would be appropriate. I also agree to change the 2016/17 heading to something else. I don't particularly mind 'solo endeavors' either. Apart from the history section headings, I feel that the endorsements and philanthropy sections need more expansion too. Requiem II (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days without any disagreement, so I'll go ahead and make the changes. Also, I agree Requiem II, those sections need work. I've been meaning to put some time and effort into them for a while now. They're just tedious, with lots of time spent finding reliable sources. NicklausAU (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, should "Debut in Japan" be in 2018? Prior to their first Japanese studio album, they had released a single album (2015) and 2 EPs (2016 and 2017). I would understand if a single album didn't count as a debut, but shouldn't at least an EP count as a debut? NicklausAU (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Debut in Japan could be in 2015 as "Love Me Right ~romantic universe~" was released. It was their first Japanese single album accompanied with other tracks. There are some reliable sources stating this as well such as KoreaTimes. But, this can be debatable as "What is Love" and "History" were released prior to their debut and were later included in their debut album. Ultimately, I feel that it depends on each individual's definition of debut. I would personally consider their debut in Japan in 2015 as there are sources backing the statement up. Requiem II (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Composing subsection

This section is very much orientated towards one member only, with a lot of information that should maybe be in his individual page rather than the group page. Such as examples of material he wrote for his individual use, rather than for Exo as a group. Kim021JongdaeZYX

"Outside EXO, Chinese member Lay had written, composed and produced multiple songs, including the tracks of his two solo albums, Lose Control (EP)[168] and Lay 02 Sheep[169]. Mask is one of his most popular side tracks, and is even said to be his best song for its deep and meaningful lyrics. During the filming of Idol Producer, he explained that he got the inspirations of the song from his own experience ever since he went back to China as a solo artist. He also wrote and composed his 2015 SM Station single Monodrama[170]. For OSTs, he wrote, composed and sang “Alone” for his 2015 romantic-comedy film Ex-Files 2, in which he won his first solo award, as well as “Prayer”, for his 2017 Chinese web-drama Operation Love. He also composed the song “Not to be Continued” by Chinese female artist Karen Mok which was released in May 2018 for her 25th anniversary album,[171] then later MC Jin’s single Debut of the same year. In April 2018, he won the Best Producer award during the Chinese Top Ten Music Awards.[172] In December 2017, he released his first winter digital album Winter Special Gift, with all songs written and composed by him, including both the Chinese and English versions of the title track, Goodbye Christmas[173]. Some of his unreleased tracks are also previewed through his personal Weibo and/or Instagram accounts, and the official Weibo account of his personal studio. Lay is highly recognized in China as an all-around artist, highlighting his artistry in songwriting and music producing. He revealed in 2016 that he lost over 99 unreleased tracks that he composed and/or written. In total, Lay is credited for songwriting/composing of 27 released tracks."

I wonder if it could be shortened to include only a a few important points of information for the purposes of remaining on the group page. NicklausAU (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts

I am not a reviewer but I would like to give my thoughts regarding this page. First, I feel that there are excessive quotations which make reading a bit difficult. As per WP:QUOTEFARM, it would be great if some quotations can be paraphrased, or use a quote box instead. Second, the musicality section is too detailed as it describes the various tracks in an album. Probably some information can be transferred to the album page which is more appropriate. Third, the legacy and awards sections can be merged as the content is similar. Both sections serve to compliment the group's achievements. Fourth, it would be great if citations could be added to the filmography section so as to maintain consistency (currently, some are sourced while others are not). Lastly, there are still some unreliable sources such as Seoulbeats and Soompi. Requiem II (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

About merging the legacy and achievements sections, are you meaning like how it's done in GA Girls Generation? I agree on the other points. Unless someone does them first, I'll have a look at them over the next few days. NicklausAU (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging it like how it's done in Girls' Generation is a possible way as there are only five paragraphs. If more content is added, it can also be separated into achievements and legacy as well (like Big Bang). Requiem II (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. If it happens then it happens, but personally I would prefer we hold off on that decision for a short while to give more time for editors to flesh out the legacy section with more content to make it a distinct section, as I do believe there is appropriate content out there to do it. NicklausAU (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Musicality Section

Jlauren17 you recently re-added this statement to the musicality subsection - "Their strengths are also exemplified through contemporary R&B, a frequently occurring genre within their discography." If you would like it to remain there, it requires a citation from a reliable source and other people may disagree but I don't believe it's written in a neutral tone. It's very pro-Exo. NicklausAU (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Parts of recent cuts

Hi Drimes, I appreciate the time you spent on the article, but am confused at couple of the decisions made. The concept/image section, specific parts from the musicality section discussing the general direction of Exo's music over time and the reception to their stage performances from the media in their stage section. These are commonly discussed topics in good articles about groups, especially K-pop ones, such as Big Bang, Girls Generation and One Direction. Because of this, I would like to re-add those parts. What are your and anyone else's thoughts on this? NicklausAU (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, especially K-pop ones--that says a lot. What such sections need is not a list of individual appraisals about individual songs or whatever, which is typical for K-pop (an endless listing of factoids), but rather more generalizing statements. Look at the FA articles on musicians for good examples. And I'm sure you noted that much of the language was just over the top not-neutral. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Should the legal issues section be moved up to be after the awards and nominations section? As of now, awards and nominations is the last section with proper prose before several sections of basic information that only contain lists (Discography, Tours, Filmography etc.), which makes it strange to find a large chunk of text almost hidden at the bottom of the article. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? NicklausAU (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the legal issues section which is part of controversies, is out of place. Moving it after the awards and nominations section is possible. But I was originally thinking to have legal issues after the other ventures section, and moving awards and nominations after the legacy section. Requiem II (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Separate "controversy" sections are discouraged unless there are important considerations. These matters should ordinarily be discussed within the history of the band since one imagines they are of obvious importance to the history of the band. The ordinary format in so many K-pop articles of a long, long list of all the great things and the announcements, and then a section on other matters separated by the history section by other sections, easily presents a false image. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I see now that in this article those legal matters are discussed, albeit briefly, in the main text--that's good, but I wonder if those passages couldn't be rewritten to include all the material, obviating the need for a separate section. At the very least those legal issues shouldn't be buried after the discography. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text from the article because it is irrelevant / drifting off-topic material.

The same law firm that represented Han Geng of Super Junior in his lawsuit against S.M. Entertainment also represented Kris.

References

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Concept.

I was wondering if someone could make a section talking about their concept? (There was a bit of text about it @ the 'Artistry' section, but got deleted) It's been a thing since their debut(something Lee Soo-man has been working on for years) and is still on-going, a recurring theme in every single release and Tour. It's a big part of them as a group and is pretty much their trade mark, and I thought it would be a fun thing to add to this wiki (especially since SM announced last year that they will be releasing official graphic novels about it). JET 20 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If SM Entertainment do release "cannon" supporting material such as comics/graphic novels explaining this backstory for their concept, then it might be different. But even as the creator of the initial "concept" section, I'm leaning towards agreement with the opinion of the user who removed it. As of now, it is technically just a marketing gimmick. Yes, it has come up multiple times, but only in roughly a third of their music videos and in a small percentage of their media interviews without any direct impact on their actual music. I'm very open to hearing others' opinions on this though. NicklausAU (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Level of detail for album releases in History section

So while I've been doing some editing, I noticed the level of details for each album release vary wildly in this article. Some have none. It's just said that the album was released. Some have almost every single chart position they reached mentioned. Many are somewhere in the middle.

We need a consensus on what to include. The main charts that ALL of their albums (and lead singles) appear on are Gaon Album Chart, Gaon Digital Chart, Billboard World Album Chart and Billboard World Song Chart.

After that, there is a small collection of random chart positions that some of their albums achieved, which I think are fine. But those 4 are the problems. What do we include as a rule? NicklausAU (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

Can we add the latest legacy of EXO the First Artist/Idol/Group that been featured in Burj Khalifa? And the number one Group/Artist who sold out concert ticket in just 0.2seconds? Thank you. QueenJ0805 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

QueenJ0805 The legacy section refers to Exo's general impact on their own industry and popular culture as a whole, as in what they in particular will be remembered for. All things considered, the facts that they were the first artists to be displayed on a building (albeit a huge one) and sold out several concerts very quickly, are not significantly important in my opinion. If the Burj Khalifa show was maybe attended by EXO themselves (as the water fountain show was) or if, in addition to the fastest selling concert, they also had something like the largest ever concert tours for a kpop artist or had concerts in countries no other kpop artists had been to etc., then I might view those facts differently. Others are very welcome to give their views on this though. That is only my opinion. NicklausAU 10:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

2018- winter olympics and international recognition

in 2018, EXO did a lot of notable things in every month. in july, EXO was featured on the world's tallest building and that makes them the first ever non-royal to be featured on that giant building. EXO's Song POWER played on 2018 FIFA worldcup final. Power was won in poll conducted by fifa offical twitter account which gathered 3m+ votes and that poll is currently the highest voted one in twitter records. --Kusjun (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Kusjun See my reply to the question above, as it also applies to the history section. For people/bands like EXO who have done so many things, only the most significant facts can be mentioned in their article. Otherwise, it would be excessively long. NicklausAU 10:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:NicklausAU EXO fans are thinking that EXO haters are deleting EXO's achievements from their page. EXO fans and EXO itself feeling proud of their 2018 achievements. 2 lines won't make the page bigger and i hope you won't delete it. Kusjun (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Kusjun I appreciate that you really want it in the article but Wikipedia isn't a place to "show off" or "impress" people. It's an encyclopedia where the most important information about a topic is presented. As a fan myself too, I found this hard to abide by at first (and some would say my edits are still too pro-EXO). But those are the rules of Wikipedia. There are events relating to Exo that are much more significant to their career that already have significantly less space allocated to them. Allocating such a large space to a relatively minor event is uneven and bias. Huge numbers of tidbits and small achievements are missing from this article, for that reason. Aside form that, Most of your edit was not sourced and the parts that were sourced, you used unreliable sourced (such as Soompi). There has already been a consensus reached on this issue, with 2-3 editors disagreeing with you. Please do not continue to made disruptive edits. NicklausAU 07:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I heard that Exo page was vandalized agin? I don't know if it's ture but if it was please to the owner of there page don't let anyone edit it anymore as a Fellow Exol to another just keep updating it yourself we don't need imature fans from THAT fandome to come and mess with Exo page now if it's not true I do apologize but this is what I heard Nellabanela (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Nellabanela:, if you'd like, you can look at the page's history. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been vandalised recently. On Wikipedia, nobody owns any article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging sections

What are everyone else's thoughts regarding morning the "subunit and solo endeavors" and "Legal issues" sections into the "history" section? That way the information is presented in the natural timeline and not hidden until after reading the band's history. NicklausAU 23:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearer picture of the members

I would like to add a clearer picture of the nine members together. How should I add it? Zjiashuai (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You cant, there is no better picture available at the commons, you cannot upload some random image you find on the web. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Snowflake91 That's a tad bit negative... Zjiashuai, there is currently no image in Wikipedia commons that shows them better. If, however, you are able to find a better picture with the correct licensing information, you can upload it here and replace the current image with it. Fair warning though - it's very, very, very hard to find an image with the correct and appropriate license info. NicklausAU 06:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Discography section

Why Discography section need to be separated by language? as far i know discography artist doesn't need to separated by language, Everything else should go on the discography page instead. Orentbyte (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Orentbyte, I agree. Unless there is anyone with a reason against, I'm happy to change it. NicklausAU 03:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nicklaus, so far the best discography for k-pop artist is Twice discography. that's a very good example to a discography pages for k-pop or artist in general. I still don't know why they keep separated discography section by language, without any good reason to do it. 04:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

They should remain separated and not combined because they are marketed to completely different music markets. They are not marketed as consecutive releases; they are independent from each other. Shakira's Oral Fixation, Vol. 2 is her second English-language album, but her seventh studio album; Jennifer Lopez's Como Ama una Mujer is her first Spanish-language album, but her fifth studio album. By comparison, Countdown is Exo's debut studio album in Japan. It was released before Don't Mess Up My Tempo, which is their fifth studio album, not their sixth. The chronologies between released in South Korean and releases in Japan are are simply separate. The merging with Japanese and South Korean releases in Twice discography is quite a tragedy. ℯxplicit 05:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but none of the discography sections in the main articles for those three artists divide the albums by language like we do here. Is that not a precedent? I'm not familiar with many artists that release albums in multiple languages like this, but I would guess that the majority of them do not separate by language. NicklausAU 13:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but what does that have to do with this article? No two articles are written the same. What works for one article may not work for another, especially with such intrinsically different music markets like South Korea and Japan compared to the western world. Forcing western customs on articles about eastern countries ignores common sense. ℯxplicit 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at similar articles for guidance in structuring an article isn't "forcing" anything. Where an artist is from does not dictate the structure of their Wikipedia page. If a consensus is reached one way or the other, then that is what is used. NicklausAU 03:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What you're searching for is a rule, which is ignored if it doesn't benefit the article. There is no benefit in doing so here, especially when it comes to discography pages. Girls' Generation discography, a featured list, separates its releases by language. Doing so keeps them in chronological order, and merging them would make a jumbled mess. Several of their songs would require to be listed twice, which would confuse the reader. They come from separate albums, which would complicate things further. Then there are songs where both versions of the songs charted in one country, like "Run Devil Run", "Gee", "Mr.Taxi", etc, which would bring the issue of correctly displaying the sales, as well as noting the different peaks. I don't see how cramming everything together would help navigation of the discography. There is absolutely no issue with the current format on that discography or how they're listed here on Exo's page. This is a solution looking for a problem. ℯxplicit 04:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:BTS (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Name in order of age

Hi. I think the names should be listed from eldest to youngest in the first paragraph. Currently, it listed based on Exo-K then Exo-M members. Since Exo no longer split between K and M, I feel that it should be back to listing their names by age. The box thing at the right also listed it based on their ages too. I think it better to be consistent with the box thing. Plus the next paragraph, they divided the names to K and M. That one is okay because it added the old members and tell us about the history until 2014. So I think we can change the names in the first paragraph to by age order? It eliminates the confusion when new people see the paragraph and box being differet... 219.74.196.215 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, you can go ahead and do it. The names are only in that order in the lead section because I wrote them that way originally (which is my personal way of remembering them all). NicklausAU 06:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to edit the page.. 219.74.196.215 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@219.74.196.215: I’ve made the changes for you. Alexanderlee (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry @219.74.196.215:, for some reason that didn't even occur to me :( Thanks Alexanderlee. NicklausAU 00:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Two supporting sources needed for Exo figures please!

I asked this on the Exo discography talk page but I'm also asking here as I have yet to get a response but I need two reliable sources for DMUMT and Exact mentioned on this list. I cleaned up the Korea section as best as I could but I'm not familiar with Exo content so I could not provide the sources. If any of the exo page editors can help that would be great!! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

In April 2018, Forbes described Exo as one of the two artists worldwide that dramatically over-perform on social media, with the other being fellow K-pop boy band BTS.[186] Both groups exceeded the reach of American artists such as Beyonce, Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift.[186] Twitter statistics from Next Big Sound, show that with 24 million mentions in one week, Exo recorded 14,000 times more than expected.[186] Exo also ranked at number two on the 2018 Billboard Social 50 end of year ranking, alongside BTS who ranked at number one.[187]

Please change to the following.

In April 2018, Forbes described EXO as one of the two artists worldwide that dramatically over-perform on social media.[186] Both groups exceeded the reach of American artists such as Beyonce, Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift.[186] Twitter statistics from Next Big Sound, show that with 24 million mentions in one week, EXO recorded 14,000 times more than expected.[186] EXO also ranked at number two on the 2018 Billboard Social 50 end of year ranking.[187] 42.61.51.60 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Removing all mentions of BTS from the paragraph causes issues with flow/grammar (i.e The second sentence says "Both groups" - removing the reference to BTS from the previous sentence makes it confusing. NiciVampireHeart 20:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Partially done. I wrote the original section you referred to and knew it was a mistake even then. It was only written to satisfy a very questionable GA reviewer who seemed more interested in instigating drama and comparisons between the two groups than about improving the quality of this page (for evidence, read final message on GA review page). The second reference to BTS was literally only there because he/she asked for it. The first; however, is neutral and does work. NicklausAU 13:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

unit/subunit and solo

As there is now a section for subunit, will it be great if it can be expanded to include solo careers as well? All other information relating to solo and subunits can then be removed from the history section to make it look less cluttered. There's like an entire paragraph that is not related to the band at all. Can also remove small ones like SM Station but retain Xiumin's single before enlistment as there's more to talk about. SuperM activities can also be briefly mentioned as it is listed as an associated act. We can put Lay, Chen, CBX, SC, SuperM into this new section and link the main articles there. In the future, there will be more solo and new units so might as well put everything in an independent section rather than putting everything in a paragraph slotted in the history section. It looks messy and out of place, at least to me. Thank you.219.74.0.91 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discography

With now 2 of the 6 albums in the "Korean and Mandarin" discography section being only released in Korean and not also in Mandarin, it might be time to revisit the discussion of groupings of albums in discography sections. As "Korean and Mandarin" is not an accurate title for third of the list and we are relying on footnotes to provide clarification, a change should be made in my opinion. I see 2 options:

A) Move Don't Mess Up My Tempo and Obsession to a third section called "Korean albums" or something similar, to signify that they were released only in Korean alone. However, this solution does not rectify the fact that DMUMT included one song on it that was in Mandarin.

B) List all studio albums chronologically without language distinction.

I'm just going to tag anyone involved in discussions about this topic, now archived, on the talk page previously. I understand if you are no longer interested in having an input, but any opinions about those 2 options or any third options are welcome. Orentbyte, ℯxplicit, Ss112, Requiem II.

It should be noted, a consensus has never actually been reached on this issue. Changes have been attempted before and discussions have [always ended in stalemate], not consensus. The albums were separated from their original chronological order without language distinction here (see diff) without a discussion or reason given.

My personal opinion is option B, as option A would make the page unnecessarily convoluted and I can't think of any other alternative. NicklausAU 10:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging an additional very regular contributor to this article, QueenJ0805. I apologise for not tagging you originally. NicklausAU 11:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I say we change it back to chronological order without language distinction. It doesn't really benefit readers; they can learn more in the prose, on Exo discography or the individual album articles anyway. I don't even think it needs to be a full discussion. It's appreciated that you'd prefer to address it on the talk page though, as most don't do that. Ss112 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I oppose both options and this constant push to fix something that isn't broken. Not all articles are written and formatted in the same way, nor is there any requirement to do so. MOS:DISCOGRAPHY makes it clear: "The exact format chosen will depend on the discography and the amount of verifiable information available, which may vary greatly between musical acts. In all cases, the format should follow from what's best for the article, and not vice versa." The chronology between the Korean/Mandarin and Japanese albums simply do not overlap. If the footnotes are that much of an issue, just change the header to omit "Mandarin" and remove the footnotes. From my understanding, both versions of the first four studio albums are not independent from each other—when are the Mandarin versions referred to as Chinese studio albums as opposed to just editions/versions of the Korean one?—in the same sense that the original Korean-language "Love Me Right" and Japanese-language "Love Me Right" operate separately and the country-specific singles chronology splinter off into their own thing thereafter.

"However, this solution does not rectify the fact that DMUMT included one song on it that was in Mandarin." That does not make it a Mandarin album in the same sense that miss A's English-language "Love Alone" doesn't make A Class an English album. ƏXPLICIT 10:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! It's a pleasant surprise to receive a notification while I just stumbled upon Wikipedia as Exo will be releasing a new album soon. Anyway, I think both options aren't feasible. Option A is going to make the discography section confusing and messy with three different sub-headings. For Option B, it feels like we are under-crediting Exo's involvement in releasing songs in Korean, Mandarin and Japanese. Or if you want to use the chronological order, you can put the language beside the album in brackets (e.g., 2013: XOXO (KR and MR) <- personally I think it feels weird? Ultimately, I feel that Japanese albums must be denoted as most of the songs in that album do not have Korean or Chinese versions yet, which may imply it's a standalone album. Requiem II (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect, ℯxplicit, this is not a push to fix something that isn't broken. The current format is broken if the list title is inaccurate for a third of the list. I did not imply that all articles must be written in a certain way, nor that this article should be altered to fit a pre-determined structure, so please don't put words in my mouth. I believe I am following the exact passage of MOS:DISCOGRAPHY that you brought up. The format should follow what is best for this article, which is currently doesn't. With regard for your actual point, I don't understand how the "chronology of the studio albums do not overlap". They are all full studio albums and were released in a specific order. I don't see why they are not equivalent in standing. Currently, readers have to do a double take to understand what should be quite a simple list.

Hello to you too Requiem II, thank you for your additions! However, I am not really sure we need to be concerned about possibly under-crediting the range of languages Exo release music in, considering the number of times the languages are mentioned in the lead and this article, although I do see your point. NicklausAU 11:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I support Explicit’s option of simply removing Mandarin from the header. Japanese and Korean albums are not released in a straight forward order like you’re suggesting. DMUMT is stated in their article to be their sixth studio album, when the source actually states it to be their fifth— because they’re promoted to separate markets. Countdown is promoted and referred to as their first Japanese album, not their fifth album. The article should reflect this. Merging them into one list isn’t correct. Alex (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

source for those specific sales are from the Hanteo chart. dont know why that chart sales is used for exo but not for the others on the list? for kpop, wiki pages use the Gaon chart instead. sources for the Gaon sales are easy to find. just type in 2016(for ex'act)/2018(for dmumt) Gaon top 100 album chart. official Gaon chart site should be the first to appear. JET 20 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's EXO and not Exo

I am not sure where I should say this but the official name of the band is EXO with all capitalized letters and not Exo. Kyungsooprint (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is already noted in the lede sentence. Wikipedia does not use the stylized format throughout articles, because it is marketing-based. Elizium23 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Music genre addition.

Trying again after 2 years. I was wondering why "Ballad" is not added in the genre category? They have way more ballads than songs of some of the other genres that are mentioned up there. Their Winter EPs, which they have 4 of, always have ballads as main title tracks + have some more ballads as b-sides. EXO is known for their versatility, and Ballad is one other genre that they do a lot of and receive lots of praise for(for both the music and their vocals). JET 20 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@JET 20: probably because ballads are a musical style, not a genre. Alex (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the article history, this was even stated in the edit summary here when your addition of ballad as a genre was reverted (by me, coincidentally).

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

Please change "nine members in EXO" to "eight members." Lay Zhang, or Zhang Yixing, left the band EXO in the year of 2017, or possibly earlier. If I am incorrect, I apologize, and you may keep it as it is. I assumed he left since he does not participate in working with them anymore. Thank you! Oikasara (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done according to statements by members and SM, Lay has not left the group. Alex (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Drmies (talk · contribs) If you have any further issues, please state your concern here to avoid WP:WAR. WP:KO/RS gives a good example of Korean reliable sources. Naver link sources, as long as it is not the blog ones, can be used as reference. If you have issues with Naver link sources, you can also raise your concern there. Heolkpop (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

recent edits to Exo page

Some user recently edited the opening paragraphs to exclude these lines: "The band ranked as one of the top five most influential celebrities on the Forbes Korea Power Celebrity list each year from 2014 to 2018, and have been named "the biggest boy band in the world" and the "kings of K-pop" by media outlets." The lines were shifted to a below section of "Impact and Influence" and truncated. Can someone with permissions to edit this semi-protected page restore the quoted lines to the opening paragraph? I believe it's important to accurately capture the fact that Exo is one of Korea's most popular boy bands in the footsteps of Big Bang and before the rising star of BTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjuper68 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: aside from the title of "biggest boyband in the world", it’s already sourced within the article, this editor is asking for the information to be put back into the lead. I'm not sure why they are required to provide sources for information that is already sourced? Alex (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ticklekeys: as you're the editor who removed the information from the lead, perhaps you have a reason as to why? Alex (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

please add chen to the member section, he is still in the group Mariaadannies (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mariaadannies: where exactly are you referring to? From what I can see he hasn't been removed? Alex (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EXO MEMBER

Chen aka Kim Jongdae must be include as a member.. He still EXO member until now Devinaandriani7 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devinaandriani7: He already IS listed as a member. Google search results have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

chen is get married in 2020 205.160.111.1 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really have anything to do with Exo. It is already mentioned on Chen's article. Alex (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

BTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.28.162 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not clear what you want to have changed. This also is the page for EXO, not BTS. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Change Exo (band ) to Exo Harblue (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This type of request requires a move request, so I have placed one in a new section here on the talk page, with a basic outline of why it should be moved. Please leave your comments about your requested change on that section to help with the decision on if the page should be moved. Nangears (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 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: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Exo (band) → Exo
• Exo → Exo (disambiguation)

– The page Exo is currently a disambiguation page, and there are 3 other pages there that are titled Exo on that page. "Exo (band)" seems to me to clearly be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as in the past 30 days it has had an average of close to 5,000 page views, and the next closest of those other 3 Exo pages had an average around 80 page views a day (and then around 30 and then an average of 3, in descending order for the other two pages). While page views are not the only criteria, I think this makes it fairly clear that this is the primary page that people are looking for when searching Exo, and thus the disambiguation page should be moved to have a parenthetical disambiguation and "Exo (band)" should become "Exo". Nangears (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: The Exo page is indeed a disambiguation page with content, and so it would also have to be renamed to make way for the band's page move to that title. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as not primary topic. What most people are searching for relates to the prefix exo- and derivative titles, and so the DAB serves a better function. Looking at page views from much farther back, the band received a big bump in 2018, but a likewise drastic fall to. This RM is just more boy band fancruft - PRIMARYTOPIC is not about over-inflating the significance of pop culture topics with only fleeting popularity. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, per WP:NOTADICTIONARY, the primary purpose of WP is not for looking up words or parts of speech, such as the prefix "exo-", which is why the page is a disambiguation page and not an article page on its own. The page also only lists 5 notable uses of the prefix for scientific usage, so it is not as if this page's primary purpose is to direct readers to all the possible words that begin with "exo", which I would then agree is a much more significant use and would be a better argument as to why "Exo (band)" is not the primary topic. Further, what is your argument that "most people" are searching for the prefix based on, because the page Exo has an average of around 80 views over the past 30 days. Even with the popularity of this page having fallen off considerably from its large spike in 2018, since 2015 it consistently has pageviews in the 4000+ range. So, even to look at the page in its dropped popularity, so for example, just to compare the last 30 days, Exo (band) has more average daily page views than the Exo page and the five listed scientific usage terms on the page combined (the highest being Exoplanet at around a 900 view average). Again, I know page views aren't the only determining factor, but then what are you basing your argument of "most people" on? Nangears (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Disambiguation should take the reader to the most likely desired destination. It is not for us to judge his taste in music. 3K008P9 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:SURPRISE. Bands can be rather popular but are still niche. The scientific usage of "exo" still has more long term significance and relevance to a general audience._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per no primary topic. Exo is a standard and basic unit of vocabulary. (band) won't harm people looking the the Chinese boy-band. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. I moved it to Exo (group) for now per WP:BANDDAB (boy bands should be named a "group", not "band". ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTDICT and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for disambiguating topics that are on Wikipedia, which outweigh the explanatory supplement WP:SURPRISE. No one is going to be surprised to find that the encyclopedia is not a dictionary of prefixes. I would suggest, however, retargeting exo- to List of Greek and Latin roots in English/A–G#E. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support I highly doubt the average person would search "exo" with the intention of being directed anywhere but this article, epecially considering it's the fourth most visited band article on Wikipedia. Mal Arken (talk) 18:07, 12 October 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.

Requested move 10 November 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: not moved. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Exo (group) → EXO – Most links read "Exo (group)" as "EXO", so this is better known in all caps. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Needs discussion, considering MOS:TM. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. In direct violation of MOS:TMRULES. ƏXPLICIT 06:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Exo as WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Article consistently averages at least 4,000 daily pageviews, sometimes spiking to hundreds of thousands in 2018. That's over 97% of all pageviews in the past 90 days. Approximately 84 people per day are landing on the dab page, almost all of whom want the band; moving the band to Exo would benefit those readers. Station1 (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) it's unlikely that anyone wanting Exo (group) is ignoring Exo (group) in search results and drop down top right box and instead going to Exo by mistake. On which software would this happen?

(2) closer, please note that Station1 has repeatedly and consistently argued on dozens if not hundreds of RMs against the guideline, namely against: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) Software without javascript enabled, I believe, although someone can correct me if that's wrong. It's irrelevant though, since for whatever reason, 84 readers per day are winding up on the dab page. (2) I'm not aware of any other article titled Exo whose topic is of greater long term significance. Station1 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Also oppose due to MOS:TMRULES - Exo is not an initialism or acronym and thus not warranted in all caps. Evaders99 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Exo per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Station1 makes a good point, and the viewership statistics are an indication that this article should be eventually moved to Exo. Mal Arken (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per MOS:TMRULES and also oppose moving to primary topic per the last discussion. (Not this again...)_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose In direct violation of MOS:TMRULES. And Exo is obviously not primary topic in Gbooks. Yet again. Can we have a moratorium please? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TMRULES as mentioned above. Stylization note should be enough to be included in the page to indicate it being stylized in all caps. — Emperork (talk) 03:51, 17 November 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.

EXO-K and EXO-M

Both are their own individual subunits and I think they are both worthy of their own Wikipedia articles, gaining notability from MAMA and Overdose. - K-popguardian (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

They haven't been separate groups since Overdose was released. So how much content would be written that is distinct from this article and each other? You basically have would be in 2006–2012 and 2013–2014 headers? Esp since they seem to have always jointly promoted their work, I can't think of any reason why they would have individual articles. Evaders99 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

They haven't had separate articles all this time, is it really necessary now? It's not like they even released different material. Alexanderlee (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So just a combined EXO-K and EXO-M article would work, but otherwise, they shouldn't be just lumped in with normal EXO albums when they're clearly not the same. - K-popguardian (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Hi, please change "Lay auditioned in Changsha, China, and subsequently moved to South Korea" to "Lay auditioned in Changsha, Hunan, China, and subsequently moved to South Korea". Thank you. 24.61.83.139 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)