Talk:NCT 127 discography

Language separation

Opening a discussion as suggested by @Paper9oll. I personally don't think it's necessary because Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style suggests to keep a chronological order of releases and NCT 127 doesn't have a huge discography which would require an ulterior subdivision. Other than the fact that it's used in K-pop articles, which is just a convention not an actual guideline, I don't see how it would be necessary. Pinging @124.120.122.235. Poirot09 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Imo, it does improves the article even if the proposed WP:DISCOGSTYLE guidelines (noting that it's tagged dormant since 2020) doesn't explictly stated it. In fact, WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Ignore all rules covers exactly that, quote "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same ... It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals", while "every artist is different" depends on how you actually intrepret it, however it's quote "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals" which imo is what matters. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

How does it improve the article though? The lead already states the difference and in general K-pop artists tend to mix languages (ex. Korean and English, Japanese and English and Up Next, defined as an English EP, includes Korean verses), which makes it kinda confusing. Additionally, the separation implemented by the IP doesn't include singles, making it more confusing. It seems like a copypaste of other K-pop articles made without a valid reason. Poirot09 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if it might be useful, but a similar discussion was held at Talk:BTS singles discography, with the result being to not separate for various reasons. Poirot09 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Poirot09 Lead is summary hence chunk of words. While table are visual data representation hence having segregation on which is which improves the table imo, serving similar purpose to Infobox. While IP didn't update the singles table, it can always be updated to include the singles table. As for that BTS singles discography discussion, it is a total mess, couldn't gasp what exactly they are talking about, the conversation flow is all over the place. However, noting that the article itself still has Japanese segregation for 2010s releases. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see your point, but imo specifying the language is not useful as K-pop tends to mix languages anyway so it would be like highlighting the "main" language, a decision mostly made based on marketing I guess. At this point, I'd like to see some other opinions, just to get a general consensus. Poirot09 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Poirot09 that separating the tables by language doesn't improve this particular article. I think it does work for some articles, where the artist has really a extensive discography with a clear division by language/region. The TVXQ singles discography is an example of one of those (though wow, I would just make those two different tables — it's way too long). But NCT 127's discography is not nearly as long as to make separation necessary for readability. In any case, I would be hesitant to make any judgements about whether an album is Korean, Japanese, or English without confirmation from independent sources. It doesn't look like we have that for Up Next.

Also there may be some accessibility concerns with putting column headers in the middle of a table, per MOS:COLHEAD. I'm not sure if there is consensus on that, but you might reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility to ask. Lenoresm (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)