Talk:I Got a Boy

Korea C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Albums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Official Cover Art

What is it? On the Melon music site the cover doesn't match what is currently displayed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.2.224 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The itunes version is the same as this. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the Itunes version more official than Melon, a provider in their official country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.2.224 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cover on the article is the correct one. The one that seems to be used in a few other places is actually the single cover which is on the song's page; MelOn also seems to be using this cover over the actual album one. HerroLink 03:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I saw it as well, the single cover was used instead of the album cover in some sites. This page and the itunes one are the same and the correct one. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition section.

Talk That, or Boomerang was recorded as a Korean song first why does that section fail to mention this? This song was recorded in 2008, and was supposed to be promoted instead of Gee. This song was leaked last year in the internet, with a screenshot of Dancing Queen MV. Why does this article fail to mention this? I mentioned that it was recorded in 2008, and a Japanese version was added in their 2nd Japanese album, below the tracklist. I think it should be mentioned in the composition section as well. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 06:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine

This song got onto the TIME [1]. Not sure if you can meld this ref into somewhere. Dengero (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Album charts

I'm just questioning the value of the Hanteo charts, considering that the Gaon charts already encompasses their sales. Just asking for some thoughts on whether it is worth listing.

Also, I'm looking to clean up the Taiwan charts, seeing as there are 5 different charts. I'm just wondering which one is the national chart, or are they lacking one? From my own knowledge, G-Music is the most accurate...

Need your thoughts

K, thanks Flarepik (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research and I found that Hanteo is definitely encompassed within the Gaon values, so I'm considering removing that part entirely. Also, it turns out that many people in Taiwan favour the G-Music charts. I will be cleaning that up if there are no objections. Flarepik (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

Jessica and Tiffany are mentioned as songwriters. Does that refer to "Rap making by Tiffany & Jessica" in the credits for "Dancing Queen"? Just need the verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.245.50 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Flarepik (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Promise (Girls' Generation song)

Although this song charted, it is not notable enough for a standalone article (See WP:NSONG). Per WP:SONGS, most songs do not merit an article and "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". What little info is here will fit in the album article. Random86 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:NSONGS. HĐ (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I got a boy can stand on it's own, and has for a long time. It was the song that won the Youtube Music Awards in the most popular section.--Yenamare (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yenamare: Promise has nothing to do with "I Got a Boy" song. HĐ (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Exactly, so why is it being asked to merge with it?, that's why I oppose

Support: We are proposing to merge both "Promise" and "Romantic St" to the I Got A Boy album article, not the song article.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Romantic St.

Like "Promise", this song is not notable enough for a standalone article. The relevant information can fit in the album article. Random86 (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:NSONGS. HĐ (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, that song has nothing to do with IGAB except for the fact that it's the same artist. --Yenamare (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yenamare: I Got a Boy is the song's parent album. Your reasons are just plain ridiculous. HĐ (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: same reason as above--TerryAlex (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex, @HĐ Why should it be merged? There are people reading the article, and people creating them. Where is wikipedia's rule for notability? What's a reference for that? How do you know if you're not just being biased? ~~OPPOSE~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Yenamare: You can see it here. We are completely neutral and follow the rules of Wikipedia. HĐ (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ That is a talk page, project page, that's not a rule, that's what you think, or want it to be. Anyone can edit that page, it's not protected and endorsed my wikipedia management, you're another normal person like me, and your choice to just delete it and merge is biased ~~OPPOSE~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yenamare: No, it is based upon Wikipedia's rules and is created by the administrators. You are a newcomer, so please stop SHOUTING as you are the one that is being biased. HĐ (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ Anyone can be an "administrator", they just have to be registered long enough and edit a lot of articles, or be voted as one by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yenamare: You sure don't know how Wikipedia works. Stop making nonsense excuses. HĐ (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ well then pray tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yenamare: Please read WP:NSONGS. Your argument does not make any sense. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex, HĐ that does sound more convincing. But I just don't see why you have to delete the page, instead of improving it. It probably can stand on it's own. By just deleting it, you're basically stopping anyone who might have the time and passion for expanding the article, from expanding it. It's as if you "don't" want people to extend the articles. Just put a note that it needs more information like many incomplete wikipages do, surely someone will get to it. Also, if there needs to be a consensus on this subject, and your goal is to delete the stand alone and merge some info to IGAB, I still "oppose". There's something about how pushy you are for deletion, and "your argument doesn't make sense", is not an argument, at least try to have a conversation.--Yenamare (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]