Lizzydarcy2008 (talk | contribs) |
Lizzydarcy2008 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 474: | Line 474: | ||
Please see more discussions about this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unpleasant_RFC_at_Talk%3AThe_King%3A_Eternal_Monarch. The issue comes down to version A espousing outdated misconceptions about the drama. Reliable information about the drama's success became available after the second quarter of the year. Version B includes up-to-date information. [[User:Lizzydarcy2008|Lizzydarcy2008]] ([[User talk:Lizzydarcy2008|talk]]) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
Please see more discussions about this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unpleasant_RFC_at_Talk%3AThe_King%3A_Eternal_Monarch. The issue comes down to version A espousing outdated misconceptions about the drama. Reliable information about the drama's success became available after the second quarter of the year. Version B includes up-to-date information. [[User:Lizzydarcy2008|Lizzydarcy2008]] ([[User talk:Lizzydarcy2008|talk]]) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
: {{u|CherryPie94}}, why has the lede section been updated? No consensus has been achieved yet. Per [[WP:Vote]], "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." In fact, Nangears suggested using "your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link)" which I agree with as the quotes lower the credibility of the report, undermining the drama's most notable achievement. Note how version B presents this fact. The overriding consideration should be up-to-date and properly weighted information. The 30-day limit is just the bot's trigger to perform automated action; it may be overriden. You know very well the discussion is still ongoing in above-mentioned noticeboard and did not end on Sep 24 as you noted in your edit summary. [[User:Lizzydarcy2008|Lizzydarcy2008]] ([[User talk:Lizzydarcy2008|talk]]) 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
: {{u|CherryPie94}}, why has the lede section been updated? And with an additional comment about "mixed reviews" that was never discussed before added too. No consensus regarding our dispute has been achieved yet. Per [[WP:Vote]], "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." In fact, Nangears suggested using "your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link)" which I agree with as the quotes lower the credibility of the report, undermining the drama's most notable achievement. Note how version B presents this fact. The overriding consideration should be up-to-date and properly weighted information. The 30-day limit is just the bot's trigger to perform automated action; it may be overriden. You know very well the discussion is still ongoing in above-mentioned noticeboard and did not end on Sep 24 as you noted in your edit summary. Violating rules about editing the page while dispute is ongoing has become a habit of yours.[[User:Lizzydarcy2008|Lizzydarcy2008]] ([[User talk:Lizzydarcy2008|talk]]) 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020 == |
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020 == |
Revision as of 21:18, 9 October 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RFC on Second Paragraph of Lede
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the second paragraph of the lede section be deleted?
Please !vote in the Survey section as Yes or Delete to delete, or No or Keep to keep. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. Any replies can go in the Threaded Discussion. (This will make it easier for the closer to assess consensus.) The two editors who are having the dispute should make their statements in Statements by Proponents. Do not reply to those statements. You may reply to them in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Statements by Proponents
CherryPie94
Removing it is not a solution per WP:PRESERVE's "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." However, the second paragraph is not even "poorly presented", it is neutral, verifiable, and shows both sides, it also summaries all sub-section in the series. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, there should be one or two paragraphs if the page is fewer than 15,000 characters, but the series page has 60,931 character, which is 15,719 characters with no space (18,719 with space) when counting only readers text, not counting the lead, section title, or wiki text (tables and templates), so should have two or three paragraphs.
I see no issue with including a second paragraph in the lead section, as this page has more text compared to other k-series pages. Also other K-series have second paragraphs too, see Big (TV series) and Guardian: The Lonely and Great God and The World of the Married. Wikipedia guidelines apply to all pages, K-series do not have their own guidelines, we should compare to good articles like Game of Thrones, not half-done K-series pages.
However, replacing the second paragraph with only positive text and achievements like suggested by the other person in their sandbox is not neutral and seems like an advertisement. Adding only streaming achievement and deliberately removing mention of TV ratings is misleading as it make it seem like the series was only praised, while in reality lots of South Korean media wrote about its failure on TV (I could give you more than 30 articles). See Game of Thrones's lead, they both included mention of praise and criticism. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, so my suggestion is to keep the second paragraph and include that the views on streaming platforms were another reason for the low ratings. "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Lizzydarcy2008
Please note, a vote of No or Keep means to keep the current paragraph as is. As I explain below, the current paragraph contains incorrect and sloppy statements that need to be replaced. A vote of Yes or Delete would allow the paragraph to be deleted and replaced with a more correct and less sloppy text.
The second paragraph should highlight the most important aspects of the article in addition to those already mentioned in the first paragraph. They should be verified true and not based on speculations. The current second paragraph cites reasons for the low ratings based on speculations. Attributing the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies is erroneous and had been soundly disproved by even members of the media previously critical of the series. There is another possible reason for the low ratings - because the series recouped its production budget even before it aired, SBS found no incentive to promote it to raise its ratings. It turned out, the series was successful in the streaming market in South Korea. It went to the top of the charts in both Netflix South Korea and Wavve. Its success in Wavve is even included in the second paragraph itself. Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. [1] Thus, increased competition from Netflix also contributed to the low SBS ratings. As we can see, there are other possible causes for the low ratings. Citing only criticisms and controversies is incorrect.
The drama was even more successful in the international market. Because of its success, the drama was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second-quarter earnings of its production company. Just let that sink in. This drama achieved success its detractors try to undermine under the bog of such pettiness like production budget that these detractors keep forgetting had already been recouped even before the show aired. The drama went to the top of Top 10 lists in several countries. This drama broke the glass ceiling for kdramas in several countries! Why are these notable achievements not highlighted in the second paragraph? The only mention of it in the paragraph is with this sloppy sentence, "with GMA News Online terming it a 'hit Netflix drama' due to its popularity overseas". Saying it was a "hit" violates the following rule for what to put in the lede section per MOS:INTRO, The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). There are much better-sourced proofs about the drama's international success available. Why are we putting a lame testament to its success based on a web site calling it a "hit" show, with no statistics to prove it? For all we know, their basis might be the unreliable and inaccurate Flixpatrol yearly ranking. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Survey
Keep. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep. User:Revolutionery (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
Keep or Delete
Lizzydarcy2008 claims that "reasons for the lower ratings based on speculations" and that "Attributing the lower ratings only to criticisms and controversies is erroneous and had been soundly disproved by even members of the media who had previously criticized the series." So here I am providing you sources to show that it is not just speculations as Korean media did extensively write about it, and those news papers did say the controversies were one of the reason's the series had low ratings, so here they are: Article #1 that was written after the series end, Article #2, Article #3 that was written after the series end, Article #4 that was written after the series end, Article #5 (in English), Article #6 (in English) (I can get more). Instead of using weasel words such as "disproved by even members of the media", why not provide sources that clearly says "The King: Eternal Monarch received lower viewership ratings in Korea because of Netflix?" I can assure you, that is not the case as Crash Landing on You also aired on Netflix but it got really good TV ratings even though it also aired on cable TV which has smaller audience compared to SBS, a free TV channel.
This statement "The drama was so successful, it was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second-quarter earnings of the production company" is not a fact, it is an opinion by one of the news websites. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." You should provide the facts and let them speak for themselves, but what you are doing is combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. No one said it was not popular overseas, but is your only proof that it was popular overseas has to rely on flixpetrol data and removing mention of low TV ratings? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: Please try to understand my comments before replying so we don't keep going back and forth. Had you read my proposed texts for the second paragraph and Reception sections, you would notice I mentioned other factors for the decrease in domestic ratings. In the Reception section, I specifically pointed out controversies and criticisms as other reasons. The current second paragraph attributed the ratings ONLY to criticisms and controversies. This is erroneous. It does not even mention the most important reason - the Netflix effect.
Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. 'Thanks to Netflix and other services, I can choose to watch TV shows of assorted genres made in the U.S, Europe or many other countries at any time I want to,' a Korean woman in her 20s told The Korea Times. 'I don't watch Korean TV series frequently because of their cookie-cutter stories and excessive product placement'. A rise in the number of people sharing comparable perspectives with her has triggered a fall in the ratings." (added 8/28/2020) [1]
You should know by now your attempts at smearing me would not work. "Weasel words"? If you read the Wiki page of this drama more closely, you would notice two references to Hancinema, one critical and another actually saying the drama deserves most of the credit for the success of its production company. Several other publications like Soompi attacked the drama so much there is currently a petition demanding Soompi apologize to the drama (https://twitter.com/sam_sam_017/status/1298175463718674436/photo/1). Yet Soompi declared the drama ended on solid ratings. Pinkvilla used to be critical of the drama but posted an article about how the drama beat Crash Landing On You as most watched kdrama on Netflix in 2020 so far (https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/hollywood/king-eternal-monarch-beats-crash-landing-you-become-most-watched-k-drama-netflix-2020-yet-554101). There are more examples on the web.
You should follow your own advice and let facts speak for themselves. The main reason for this loooong debate is that you insist on repeating information already mentioned in other sections, rewording and rephrasing the same information over and over. The ratings are already mentioned in the Ratings section. Let those rating numbers speak for themselves instead of ramming the ratings down readers' throats, going as far as repeating the rating numbers in the Reception section. The production costs are already discussed in the Production section and in the right side of the page, yet you insist on mentioning it once more in the second paragraph. Please re-read our past discussions for the reasons these don't merit any more mention in the second paragraph.
For the nth time, you can easily see I did not reference Flixpatrol on the page itself. I don't intend removing mention of ratings; I am just removing repetitious mention of them. The problem is you ignore everything that does not support your prejudices. Thus, we keep going around in circles. Don't you have other things to do than obsess over smearing this drama? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- I never removed your text that is reliably sourced such as "No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks", what was removed is the statements that are combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, texted backed by unreliable sources (flixpetrol data), and opinions stated as facts. If you can provide sources that clearly says "The King: Eternal Monarch received lower viewership ratings in Korea because of Netflix”, then it will be included in the article. All what you wrote in your reply is original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: In the same vein, show me a well-sourced document saying the low domestic ratings were caused ONLY by criticisms and controversies. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- I already did above in my first comment on the Threaded Discussion. I provided multiple articles and could give you more. "The burden of proof is on the claimant", you want to claim that the ratings are low because of Netflix, then you need to provide sources and I will gladly include it in the article. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- There you go again, reading only what supports your prejudices. I said give me articles that say ONLY criticisms and controversies caused the low ratings. Nothing else. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: Rather than this back and forth, do you have a source that does state the ratings are low because of Netflix? Of the five sources in your suggested reception section in your sandbox, none of them state this, and you have yet to give your statements on that section, so I have been waiting to see if such a source exists before I vote. But, this deflection from providing a source seems to imply that you don't have such a source. If that is untrue, please provide it. Nangears (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: You are the one causing this back and forth, as you are the one making disruptive changes and blaming others for undoing your disruptive changes. You even made changes while there was a dispute resolution discussion going on. What is it you cannot understand from my statement above? I already pointed out two other possible causes for the low ratings - (1) because the production budget was recouped before the series went on air, SBS had no incentive to promote it further, leading to lower ratings after the first week (2) the heightened competition from Netflix that experienced record-high subscriptions in April. For the nth time, prove that the low ratings were caused ONLY by criticisms and controversies as your second paragraph alleges. Otherwise, your second paragraph contains an incorrect statement and should be deleted and replaced with a more correct one. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I am not the user who you have been having this dispute with, you should check signatures before replying. Yes, you have pointed out POSSIBLE causes, but not ones backed by reliable sources, which is what I asked for, to help me in determining my response in the survery in this RfC. You have given your speculation, and the statements you have given fall under opinion and original research, as you are drawing conclusions from sources when they are not stated. I was asking for even one reliable, secondary source, that points to the low ratings being caused by Netflix. Also, in general, you should know that generally you should not edit the comments you have already made once people have responded to them, so in the future you should avoid editing your statement above, or if you must, use strikethrough or something like that, because otherwise, when you remove or reword content, later comments will seem to be responding to content that is no longer there. Nangears (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: My apologies for not checking your signature. I updated my statement to make it clearer as it seemed like it was not being understood. But I know exactly what it feels like responding to something that has changed. I felt the same way when massive changes were made on the article in the middle of a dispute resolution discussion. Some of my arguments became senseless. I will refrain from editing answered comments in the future.
- Regarding the sentence alleging that controversies and criticisms caused the low ratings, the references in the current second paragraph also did not specifically say they did. The first reference (http://sports.hankooki.com/lpage/entv/202005/sp20200510074229136670.htm) just noted that "The slump of'The King-Eternal Lord' continues", but did not specifically state that criticisms and controversies caused the low ratings. The second reference (https://sports.chosun.com/news/ntype.htm?id=202005230100194960013818&servicedate=20200522) said, "Kim Eun-suk is all blame for the poor performance of'The King'? Lack of detail → directing also played a part". The article was asking a question and it went on to analyze the writer's previous works and dynamics with the director but did not specifically state these are all causes of the low ratings. The third reference (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644) said, "Star screenwriter struggling with lower-than-expected popularity of 'The King'" then went on to enumerate controversies and criticisms but did not specifically state they caused the low ratings. They were all speculations. In the same way, I doubt I would be able to find an article specifically stating Netflix caused the low ratings or that the fact that the production costs were recouped before the show aired removed the incentive to promote the drama leading to lower ratings. I think the only way the cause of low ratings may be stated with confidence is if a survey were done in South Korea asking responders the reason for not watching the show on SBS. This, of course, just proves that the statement in the second paragraph attributing the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies is unfounded. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: But the articles do directly state controversies and criticisms of the show as reasons for low ratings. The second reference does point out how the low ratings are unexpected after the director's earlier success, and then directly points to directing and the show's composition overall not explaining complex things well to the audience as reasons for the show to have found less success when compared to these earlier works. The third reference, after mentioning the success of the director's earlier work like the second source, says that, "In "The King," however, such characteristics have failed to impress audiences. Rather, controversies over its historic scenes have undermined the reputation of the drama", and enumerates several other things the audience has pointed to as criticism of the show, those being that "the series fails to fully explain the parallel universe", and distracting product placement, and then controversy over "Japan-like styles" in some scenes. These are all mentioned in explanation of the shows low ratings, again, in comparison to the director's earlier work. There are multiple explanations given, by reliable secondary sources, and these are mentioned in the lead and explained more fully in the article body, as is appropriate on Wikipedia. The lead, as it is, does not point to one and only one thing as the reason, it points to several critcisms, all that are sourced and has been connected by secondary sources to low ratings. Since you have continously deflected from providing a source, this leads me to think that you do not have a similar source, that points to Netflix's popularity as a reason for low ratings. Therefore, interpreting sources that mention a rise in Netflix's popularity as a reason for the show to have had less traditional viewship, is just that, an interpretation, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. You may personally hold the opinion that this was a contributing factor to the show's lower ratings, but if you do not have a reliable secondary source to back up that opinion, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nangears (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. 'Thanks to Netflix and other services, I can choose to watch TV shows of assorted genres made in the U.S, Europe or many other countries at any time I want to,' a Korean woman in her 20s told The Korea Times. 'I don't watch Korean TV series frequently because of their cookie-cutter stories and excessive product placement'. A rise in the number of people sharing comparable perspectives with her has triggered a fall in the ratings." (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: Thank you for supplying a source! It's unfortunate you didn't have this source earlier, as now the options for the RfC are between keep and delete, and I think the best option would be to add the rise in streaming platforms to the list of reasons for lower domestic TV-viewership, as, based on that source, streaming services seem to be a contributing factor as well as the criticism around the historical fantasy elements and other such controversies. Nangears (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: This is why my suggestion is to delete the second paragraph and replace it with a more correct and less sloppy one. Keep means to keep it as is. Delete would allow it to be replaced. Please note I made some changes to my statement just now to clarify that Keep means to keep the second paragraph as is. As I mentioned in my statement, there are many more issues about the current second paragraph - it does not include more important aspects of the drama. The Netflix success of the drama is lamely mentioned in a pathetic sentence that references a news site merely because it called the drama a hit. It will be noted that Wikipedia itself advises against the use of "peacock terms" like "hit" in the lede section per MOS:INTRO. There are better-sourced references that may be used instead. That is, that whole sentence needs to go in addition to the incorrect sentence that attributed the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies. The reason the options for this RFC became keep and delete was because the dispute resolution discussion abruptly terminated when the other party made massive changes to the article and my suggestion for a new text for the second paragraph somehow got shelved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I see your suggested second paragraph on your sandbox, but to me that deletes too much of the relevant information on the several causes for low ratings (which even the article you just linked me to points to more than one cause, not just streaming services), so I think that does the page a disservice as well. I would keep the current paragraph mostly as it is, as it summarizes well the relevant page info for the average reader (such as why it was so highly anticipated), but then just add to the final sentence a mention of the rise in popularity of streaming platforms as one of the causes of its lower ratings. Nangears (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: You won't believe how hard it is to update anything in this article. Every change I do is reverted. So I doubt I will be able to make any corrections to this paragraph after it is officially accepted to be kept as is. The paragraph as it stands now emphasizes the negative aspects of the drama that are highlighted in other sections already. Are the expectations more important than a drama being singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking quarter earnings of its production company? That lame mention of the drama being a "hit Netflix drama" is just pathetic compared to much better testaments of this drama's success. I will add criticisms and controversies to the factors that affected the low ratings in my suggested text.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: Unfortunately, I think this is a place we will have to disagree on, as to me, the majority of the second paragraph is positive anticipation and reception for the show, with only around a fourth of it mentioning negative reception about the show, which seems to be a fair way to handle the complicated reception the show had. But, adding the mentions of the several factors that led to lower ratings to your paragraph, I think would make it more balanced overall, and make for a better suggested change. Nangears (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: I updated my proposed text to add controversies and criticisms. To explain why I said this is negative, compare this to those of other Korean dramas, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_Landing_on_You and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heirs. Most Korean dramas don't have a second paragraph. Those that do, mention their most notable achievements. If they don't, please check the View History. They had probably been recently updated to invalidate my observation.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: The Heirs was shown in 2013 before I got into Korean dramas so I am not familiar with its reception back then. But it seems to be not as well respected as writer Kim Eun-sook's other works, even less respected than The King Eternal Monarch. Crash Landing On You seems to be generally well-liked, though not free from controversies and criticisms. But it was definitely not as badly lambasted as The King Eternal Monarch. The attacks on The King Eternal Monarch were senseless. It was lambasted because a temple that was on TV for less than a minute (blink and you miss it), looked more Japanese than Korean. It was also attacked for other artifacts, e.g. the imperial seal and crown, looking more Japanese than Korean and the Japanese warships looking Korean. The majority of viewers did not even notice them and did not care when they found out. This was a fantasy drama after all. But it hit a sensitive nerve among the local audience - their patriotism. These controversies kept getting published even after the production team apologized. The bad press undermined the production and made the drama fodder for criticisms. The detractors of the drama made a big deal of its low ratings and relished calling it a flop. While the show was airing, people thought the low ratings were caused by the criticisms and controversies. It was only after other highly anticipated dramas suffered the same fate of lower ratings did the TV industry realize what really happened - the sharp rise of streaming services was the major culprit. There was also talk of sabotage against the drama, that is why when I saw how negative its Wikipedia page was compared to other kdramas, alarm bells rang off. I have been trying to make sure Wikipedia is not made a party to a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I can see that you have good intentions with editing the page, but also you can only include on WP what is said in reliable, secondary sources, which is why I insisted on a source that made the Netflix and rating connection. Per WP:RGW, you cannot put forward what you think is the truth, you have to present, in a neutral way, what secondary sources say. And even if you think it has been unfairly lambasted or even sabotaged, if there is not sources to back that up, you cannot include that or remove the information that you personally think is unfair. Yes, some sources point to Netflix as a reason for low ratings, but even those sources acknowldege the controversy around the show as part of its low domestic ratings. The low ratings in connection to controversy seem to be something the show continues to be associated with, even following its conclusion. For example, here is an article on another show that got caught in controversy and its viewership has suffered for it, and the comparison the article makes is to The King, pointing to the several controversies around it and how, while it was a highly anticipated drama, it fared worse than expected because of the controversies surrounding it. [1] To exclude the information on controversy would be to inject your own opinion into the page on what is and isn't the truth of how the show was received. As editors, we can only determine that based on what secondary sources say. So, while I appreciate that you want to make sure the show is treated fairly, you cannot do so in a way that dismisses reliable, secondary sources, without very good backing by other reliable, secondary sources. I have yet to see anything that says the controversies did not affect the show's ratings, which is why I suggested a combination of the factors be presented, as that seems to be a better representation of what secondary sources are saying. Nangears (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: The text I am suggesting for the second paragraph mentions the streaming services, controversies and criticisms as some of the factors for the low ratings (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph). The controversies are also discussed in more detail in my suggested text for the Reception section under the Cultural Disputes sub-section (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Reception) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: Yeah, I see the updates you have made to your second paragraph, my response was more directed at your most recent response to me, about why you were worried about the inclusion of the controversies on the page. My point was simply that even if you feel that secondary sources have treated the show unfairly, that isn't the role of editors to correct. If there aren't reliable secondary sources that directly challenge the view of those initial reliable secondary sources (and even the source that you added doesn't challenge it, it just adds other aspects to it), then those initial, even if negative, sources are what should be included in the page, including in the lead per MOS:LEAD. If there were reliable sources showing how the show's reception has been misrepresented or how it was intentional sabotage, then that would be different. But, as the sources show now, I think that, and it seems you agree, that controversies and criticisms should be included in the article and lead, as well as streaming services causing lower domestic ratings. To be honest, in this first discussion (of the two RfC's), it seems the discussion has mostly reached a compromise, as both you and the other user have both agreed in changing your lead's in a way that concedes the other's point, and now it is mostly an argument over wording choices, rather than content dispute. I do not know if you see it similarly, but that is what it seems like. Nangears (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears and Lizzydarcy2008, if you think we really reached a compromise, we can ask User:Robert McClenon to change the question from Keep or Delete the second paragraph, to vote for version A or B of the second paragraph. There is only 1 vote and can easily ping the editor and ask him about his opinion again. Also, thanks Nangears for mediating as this at least got us moving in the right direction. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Nangears: My concern about the inclusion of controversies and criticisms was because they did not tell the whole story about the ratings. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears and CherryPie94, I agree to making the choice be between different versions of the paragraph. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: I didn't mean to become a mediator in the discussion, I just hoped that as a neutral person in regards to your earlier disputes and as someone who can read the sources, I would vote in which way I felt would improve the article best. But, I'm glad it has helped move the discussion forward. @Lizzydarcy2008: That makes sense, and I see why you were concerned about it.
- I will wait to see what User:Robert McClenon has to say about the discussion and the changes to the RfC before I vote. Nangears (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, my new suggestion is to keep the second paragraph and include that the views on streaming platforms were another reason for the low ratings. "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." I amended my Statements by Proponents to say this. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- To the voters of this survey, please be aware of the choices: Yes to Delete the second paragraph Or No to Keep the second paragraph AS IS. Since the second paragraph has an obviously incorrect statement, as well as other reasons mentioned in my statement above, it should be deleted so it may be replaced with correct and less sloppy text. My suggested text is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: You yourself insisted during our dispute resolution discussion that the second paragraph should be kept AS IS and now you're updating it? Such disruptive behavior is making me dizzy. Isn't it enough that your massive edits to the article in the middle of the dispute resolution discussion caused that discussion to be aborted? Since you admitted to a mistake in the second paragraph making it unfit to be kept AS IS, then it seems you just threw in the towel. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: the question here says “Should the second paragraph of the lede section be deleted?” It doesn’t say keep AS IS. Previously, I did say keep it as is in the dispute resolution because you refuse to give sources, but now that you have, we can go and edit it once the RFC is over and the choice in keep. The RFC doesn’t cause a permanent ban on editing, it means the second paragraph can’t be deleted/re-added (depends on the results) in the future, but it can still be edited if it was kept. Once this finishes, we can add your source and say streaming platforms also contributed, "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." Do you still have an issue, if so please state it? I believe Nangears explained much better than I would have by saying, “To exclude the information on controversy would be to inject your own opinion into the page on what is and isn't the truth of how the show was received.”
- Also, this major change you refer to was adding Viewership table which is provided by Nielsen. As far as I know, you did not have an issue with the viewership section and it also has nothing to do with this discussion here. If you believe there is a problem with the data, you can bring up the issue in the other RFC, not here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: before you violated the rule about not editing the article while dispute was in progress (the second time), the reason the choice was between keeping the second paragraph AS IS and deleting it was because it was negative, incorrect and sloppy. I did submit a suggested text for the second paragraph but the dispute was aborted because of your violation and my suggested text was somehow ignored. There was no talk about absence of some source as you are alleging. I had other issues with the second paragraph, not just the controversies and criticisms sentence. Please see my statement.
- Both DRN Rule A and DRN Rule B have this rule: "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress" that you violated twice. My arguments refer to the Ratings section that you renamed "Viewership", so now anybody reading my discussions about the Ratings section would wonder what I am talking about. Just because I didn't comment on your illegal edit about viewership doesn't mean I accept it. I haven't commented on it due to two reasons (1) I don't dare edit it because the dispute is still ongoing (2) the first time you violated the rule against editing the article, when you renamed Controversy section to Historical Inaccuracy while the dispute was in progress and I reverted your violation, you raised a sock-puppet investigation and an edit-war complaint against me. Such harassment, disregard for rules and injustice are too much aggravation that I'm trying to handle with tolerance for now. I'll deal with Viewership later. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I did apologize for that as I somehow missed reading the rules. Nevertheless, this is not related here. Don't keep bringing up previous issues, talk about the current discussion, not something that passed. I really don't understand why you are angry. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: You have reverted almost every edit I made, reported me twice as a sockpuppet, dragged me into a dispute resolution discussion that you violated the rules of by making massive edits to the article while the dispute was going on, and when I reverted one of your violations you had the gall to raise an edit-war complaint against me, and you're wondering why I'm not pleased with these proceedings, yet you forbid me to mention your actions that explain why. You're not making any sense. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Different versions
Since Lizzydarcy2008 agreed that the discussion should not be about whether to keep or delete the second paragraph, instead it should be about choosing which version, let us discuss here. If you still want to discuss keep or delete do it above. @Robert McClenon: Can you also add the question of choosing which version to the RFC, when you do, I will ping Michaelelijahtanuwijaya. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Lizzydarcy2008's version: The series set a record for the highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings on SBS in 2020, [2] though several factors including the rise of streaming services in South Korea as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later weeks.[1] The series made the Top 10 list of most watched TV shows on Netflix in several countries, ranking #1 in some of them. Vol 37 of Global Hallyu Issue Magazine reported it ranked 9th in the World Ranking list of most watched TV shows, the only Korean Drama in the Top 10 list.[3] It maintained the #1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks.[4] Due to its success, it was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of Studio Dragon, its production company.[5]"
CherryPie94's version: Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[6][7] the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks,[8][9] with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas.[10] On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.[11][12][13][14]
References
- ^ a b c "'Viewership is not everything': K-dramas find norm-breaking recipe for success". Elle Magazine, Singapore. 2020-07-26. Retrieved 2020-08-27.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:32
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
kofice
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
”asia9783”
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Studio Dragon Posts Best Ever Second Quarter Earnings Off of Strong Drama Performances". HanCinema. 2020-08-07. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
- ^ "Young actors move to online platforms as TV producers woo bankable veterans". Korean Herald. May 22, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
- ^ "[단독] 이정진, 김은숙 사단 합류…'더 킹 : 영원의 군주' 캐스팅". Edaily (in Korean). Retrieved September 4, 2019.
- ^ "The King: Eternal Monarch Breaks Premiere Records Despite Local Controversy". Elle Magazine, Singapore. 2020-04-22. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
- ^ "'놀면 뭐하니', 주간웨이브 예능 1위 최초 달성···'예능 왕좌 등극'".
- ^ "Did Lee Min Ho just post a major 'The King: Eternal Monarch' spoiler?". GMA News Online. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[E!시청률] '더 킹' 8.5% 기록, 2049는 5.1%…두 자릿수 못넘고 '시들'". sports.hankooki.com (in Korean). Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[SC초점] '더킹' 부진은 다 김은숙 탓? 디테일 부족→연출도 한몫했다". 스포츠조선 (in Kanuri). 2020-05-22. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "Star screenwriter struggling with lower-than-expected popularity of 'The King'". Korea Herald. May 18, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
- ^ Sun-hwa, Dong (July 26, 2020). "'Viewership is not everything': K-dramas find norm-breaking recipe for success". Korea Times. Retrieved August 30, 2020.
Discuss below this line (no need to add a new header):
My issue with Lizzydarcy2008's version:
1. Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. I know that the data is from flixpetrol as it was reported to be #9 there and nowhere else, plus for some reason, Korean media keep labeling it as Netflix's charts when they are citing flixpetrol. I assume they think it is really an official Netflix chart. Anyway, if Netflix did indeed release their data, you would be able to find it, but it is nowhere as they usually release it at the end of the year, see last years, it was reported on January 2020 not mid year. At the end of the year, if it really made the list, I would personally add it. Also none of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. The King is no longer the #1 k-series of 2020 on Netflix or #9 worldwide per flixpetrol, the source is outdated a reflects The King trending as #9 for a few days. But for now what I'm saying is that such changing charts/lists are not added to Wikipedia as they are insignificant and changes daily. If you want, I could ask in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if data from Netflix daily top 10 chart can be used or not. If they say we can add it, I have no issue in adding it, but for now they are deemed unreliable by even other editors who were removing it even before I ever edited on this page.
Also, I'm not sure if the same standards are applied to TV series charts, but in Wikipedia:Record charts, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used", meaning you can't add Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. Netflix charts would fall under that too. I will be asking about this, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia:Help desk is the correct place. I asked and here is the link Wikipedia:Help_desk#Netflix_charts.
2. The statement about it being "singled out as deserving credit" is an opinion, not confirmed by the production company. Hancinema said "likely deserves most of the credit", they confirmed nothing and are stating their opinion. Business Korea said that the raise in sale was because of "the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch," here they are talking about growing popularity, they did not single out the series for "the record-breaking second quarter earnings" from my understand. I might be wrong so let us see what others think.
I feel like the flow is not that great and each sentence seems disconnected, as if you are bringing multiple statements and just randomly throwing them into a paragraph. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Responses to CherryPie94's comments (please see my issues with CherryPie94's version below, after this sub-section):
1. Can you show me the chart from Flixpatrol that is exactly like the one in Global Hallyu Issue magazine? In fact, the magazine contains information not in Flixpatrol, e.g. the magazine mentioned the drama being in the top in the Dominican Republic. This information is not in Flixpatrol which is missing a lot of data. Look at the charts in the magazine. I don't see those rankings in Flixpatrol. And just because Netflix does not release the results to the public does not mean they did not release them to their investors and partners. Global Hallyu Issue magazine might even have a different source of information from Netflix. The fact is that the charts are in the magazine. This magazine is not some tabloid or fan magazine. It is from the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE). Regarding the significance of a kdrama being in the top 10 list of most watched Netflix TV shows worldwide, how many times has this happened before? This does not happen everyday, if ever. This is probably the first time and you don't think this is significant? Your negative bias is so obvious. Note that merely "trending" is much much different from being in the top 10 list. And again, Flixpatrol is the source that is deemed unreliable. And for the nth time, it is common knowledge that rankings change. That is why when you talk of ranking, you have to mention the time period as I did when I mentioned Vol 37 of the Global Hallyu magazine that was released in July. The drama is not anymore #9 but in July 2020, it was.
How about the claim of your reference, GMA News Online that the drama was a "hit Netflix drama"? There are no numbers or charts to prove this; just the term "hit". Where did they base this claim on? For all we know, they probably were the ones who used Flixpatrol.
Regarding the music charts, it makes sense that "charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used". Music is played on different platforms - Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. Publishing only one chart excludes a lot of information. In the case of Netflix, it was the only platform used to market The King Eternal Monarch internationally. So, the drama's performance on Netflix would be the only way to measure its global success.
2. I did not specify that it was the production company that singled the drama out. But the fact remains; it was singled out as deserving of credit as noted in https://www.hancinema.net/hancinema-s-news-studio-dragon-posts-best-ever-second-quarter-earnings-off-of-strong-drama-performances-143958.html and http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=50192. In fact, Hancinema said, "It likely deserves MOST of the credit", but I did not go that far, just the fact that it was singled out. Per Business Korea's article, "Programming revenue reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY... Drama sales climbed 9.3% YoY... amid the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch." To para-phrase, "the growing popularity of kdramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch" contributed to Studio Dragon's record earnings in the second quarter. Being so singled out is a notable achievement that does not happen to every kdrama, thus deserves to be highlighted in the lead section.
3. The flow of my second paragraph is clean and concise, as follows:
- Domestic performance - it started with high ratings but several factors affected its ratings in later weeks
- International performance - Netflix and Wavve
- Additional testament to its noteworthiness - credited for production company's success (how many dramas have gotten such credit?)
Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: The Dominican Republic is on flixpetrol. See the screenshot here: https://cdnweb01.wikitree.co.kr/webdata/editor/202006/02/img_20200602144811_40989d3a.webp and https://flixpatrol.com/top10/netflix/dominican-republic CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: This page says the drama was in #8 in the Dominican Republic. There is no record of it being in #1, as Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol.37 reported. Page 62 of the pdf in http://m.kofice.or.kr/b20_industry/b20_industry_01_view.asp?seq=1113&page=1 says, "It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I gave you the screen shots because you said there is no data for Dominican Republic on flixpetrol, which is false. The highest it got in #5 in in the Dominican Republic. Also, please don't use Korean sources if you can't read them and have to resort to google translate. The sentence says, "홍콩, 말레이시아, 필리핀, 싱가포르, 대만, 태국, 나이지리아 등에서 1위를 유지하고 있고 일본, 인도, 칠레, 볼리비아, 도미니카공화국 등에서 상위권에 랭크 중이다," which translates to "It maintained first place in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Nigeria, and ranked high (not #1) in Japan, India, Chile, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: Again you misunderstood what I said. I did not say there is no data about Dominican Republic in Fixpatrol; what I said was there is no data of the drama being #1 in Flixpatrol. If Google translate is indeed inaccurate and the sentence about Dominican Republic in Global Hallyu magazine means high, not top, it still does not prove that Global Hallyu used Flixpatrol as its source. Truth does not change. It means Flixpatrol and Global Hallyu Issue magazine are consistent with the truth. How about the other charts in Global Hallyu magazine? I am not seeing them in Flixpatrol. And this still does not answer the other question; where did your source GMA News Online get its claim about the drama being "hit Netflix drama"? Why are you not interested in where GMA News Online got that information from, but nitpicking on where Global Hallyu Issue magazine got its information from? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: Netflix never reported that the series was #9 anywhere and doesn't even have a "World Ranking" on their website, the only place that did is flixpetrol. Netflix only release their numbers at the end of the year. I assume Global Hallyu magazine took the data from June 9 or 10 as the series match: https://flixpatrol.com/top10/streaming/world/2020-06-10 However, you have to know that as flixpetrol add previous data from missing countries recently such as the middle east and caused a shift in old data. They also added IMDB and twitter ranked which even more shifted old data. Unfortunately, web archive was not used to capture data daily, so I will email both Netflix and Global Hallyu and ask where they got the info, hopefully they can reply and I will share their answer with you. Also, I know it was popular on Netflix, I don't deny it, but you should not use flixpetrol data to show that, that is all I'm asking. See Crash Landing on You#Commercial Performance, they mentioned it being a good series on Netflix without having to resort to flixpetrol, you should do this instead of relying on flixpetrol data. GMA News Online stated an opinion without mentioning flixpetrol and might have based it on online popularity not necessary number of views on flixpetrol. Anyways, I asked here and here, and was told Netflix chart should not be used. Let's not discuss this anymore and wait for votes. People would not bother read all this before voting anyways as they have done on the other RFC. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: Do you even read and try to understand what I write? I have been saying all along that Global Hallyu did NOT say they got their information from Flixpatrol and I had been trying to prove that they did NOT get their information from Flixpatrol but now you're telling me not to get information from Flixpatrol? The term "World Ranking" is in the Global Hallyu Issue magazine, not in Flixpatrol or Netflix. Voters who care about the right thing to do, and not just vote based on their biases, should care about what we write here. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I told you I emailed Global Hallyu yesterday and they replied saying, "The data you asked are from FlixPatrol." Here is a screenshot: https://i.ibb.co/PjdZWyt/Capture10.png CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: I had also emailed them and awaiting their reply. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Issues with CherryPie94's version:
1. Contrary to her claims, [[User:CherryPie94| is NOT making the article neutral. She has, in fact, been emphasizing the negative aspects of the drama and downplaying, if not removing, the positive ones. The lead section is supposed to establish or introduce a topic's noteworthiness per MOS:INTRO. One of the most noteworthy aspects about this drama is its success in Netflix. Yet, the only place it is mentioned in CherryPie94's version is in this lame phrase "with GMA News Online terming it a 'hit Netflix drama'" at the end of a very long sentence. For one, using the term "hit" violates MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'". In addition, the reference does not have any supporting material explaining why it called the drama a hit. For all we know, GMA News Online might have based its conclusion on Flixpatrol. It will be noted that the reference I used, the Global Hallyu Issue magazine includes charts and other details not found in Flixpatrol proving it did not use Flixpatrol data. This noteworthy achievement is also given a proper place in my version - its own sentence, not just an afterthought in a super-long sentence.
2. What CherryPie94 emphasized was that the drama was highly-anticipated. Is being highly anticipated more noteworthy than dominating Netflix charts or being singled out as deserving of credit for the production company's stunning quarter earnings? A lot of dramas are highly anticipated, e.g. It's Okay To Not Be Okay and Backstreet Rookie, being also comeback vehicles for other popular Korean actors, yet such information is not in these dramas' Wikipedia pages. It will be noted that the reasons cited for why the drama was highly anticipated does not include one that is often cited by newspapers - that it is the comeback drama of its lead star (please see https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1541129619969/lee-min-hos-comeback-the-king-eternal-monarch-to-arrive-on-netflix-trailer-promises-intriguing-romance). Thus, this sentence is incorrect. Also, specifying the budget amount violates another guideline in MOS:INTRO that says, "editors should avoid... overly specific descriptions". It will be noted that the amount is already mentioned in two other sections in the page. In any case, since there are more noteworthy aspects of the drama that deserve to be in the second paragraph, this information belongs in the Reception section.
3. The first sentence is too long and sloppy. I'm getting virtually out-of-breath reading it. And please spare the readers the "hailing" and "terming".
4. The second sentence indicates there are only three reasons for the lower-than-expected ratings. This is not correct. Another reason for the lower ratings is because the drama recouped its budget before it aired, relieving pressure on the viewership rating in Korea (please see http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=293689). A fifth reason, sabotage, is also still under speculation. It will be noted that my version says, "... several factors including the rise of streaming services...affected domestic TV ratings..." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: 1. The lead summarize and doesn't introduced new facts not written about in the body. Information about the series achievements on Netflix are not in the article, so they can't just randomly show up on the lead. The "Hit" is a quote it doesn't qualify as peacock terms from my understand, if I'm wrong I don't mind it being removed. 2. It does say "ensemble cast" and this is a minor thing that can be added if you want. 3. Not a valid reason on Wikipedia. 4. "reducing the incentive to raise its ratings" is not in the article and is your opinion. 5. Sabotage has nothing to do here, if news papers report we add the info and do not inject out opinion here. A quote from User:BEANS X2 to you, "If WP:Reliable Sources are generally more negative about this particular TV series, then there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it." And I suggest you re-read Nangears replies such as "My point was simply that even if you feel that secondary sources have treated the show unfairly, that isn't the role of editors to correct." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94:
- 1. The series' achievement on Netflix should be in the article. It is its most notable achievement. It used to be in the article until you deleted it. It is in my version of the Reception section. Come to think of it, the second paragraph currently has a note about "hit Netfix drama" but since you deleted all mention of the success of this drama on Netflix in the Reception section, there is now a phrase that randomly shows up in the lead. So you just contradicted yourself. Talking of that "hit Netflix drama" phrase, MOS:INTRO considers the word "hit" a peacock term. That GMA News Online called the drama a "hit" is the only reason it is in the second paragraph. A lame, pathetic reference, in keeping with your strategy of downplaying the positive aspects of the drama, just a trailing phrase in a super-long sentence, thus probably would not register in the minds of readers virtually out-of-breath reading such a lengthy text.
- 2. Saying "ensemble cast" or "cast including Lee Min Ho" is much, much different from saying "This is Lee Min No's comeback drama"
- 3. It should be every writer's goal to make every sentence he writes as easy to read as possible
- 4. Please re-read the reference
- 5. Whether there was sabotage or not, the point here is that there are other possible reasons for the low ratings than just those three you mentioned. #4 is already another one. My sentence is more comprehensive since it mentioned "other factors including...". I suggest you re-read my reply to Nangears. The problem is that this article is emphasizing the negative and downplaying the positive. My version of the second paragraph presents the most noteworthy aspects of this drama as what MOS:INTRO suggests should be in the lead section.
- @CherryPie94:
- Regarding what User:BEANS X2 said, this is why we have this massive wall of text, you never listen to what I say and I am sick of repeating myself. Here is an excerpt of my response to User:BEANS X2, "This page is currently negative because we are repeating negative points about the drama. I am not suggesting we remove the negative points. I am suggesting we avoid repeating them. In some cases, we are mentioning them three times. I have been removing the repetitions. The duplicate remarks I am removing are already covered in their respective sections..." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Former Moderator's Comments
I thank User:Nangears for asking me for my opinion, which is only my opinion, and I thank User:Nangears for trying to provide a neutral perspective. I had difficulty in moderating the discussion for various reasons, including that it appears that we have two editors who do not like each other and that we have two editors, User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008, who are verbose. As a result, there are now walls of text that may make the two editors feel better, but do not clarify the issues. It is still difficult for me to follow what the issues are because the statements are so lengthy, but I am trying to understand what the issues are, and to ignore the statements in support of positions.
I failed the moderation because one of the editors was continuing to edit the article, and was saying that she didn't know that she wasn't supposed to do that, because she hadn't read the rules because I didn't wave them in her face, and that her edits were innocent anyway. The other editor then began complaining at length on my talk page and elsewhere about how unfair Wikipedia is. I am really very tired of both editors, but will try to help, because we want the best possible article for the readers. The editors should know that the next stop is WP:ANI, which might end up with the survivors editing the article.
I do not plan at this time to express an opinion on content. If the issue about the second paragraph of the lede is now about two versions rather than Keep or Delete, we can ignore the old RFC and let it run out, and start a new RFC. Is that what is wanted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: The RFC cannot be edited? Maybe we can have the editors vote Keep or Delete, and if Keep, choose the version. So far, there is only 1 vote here and we can ping the voter and ask him to choose a version. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:CherryPie94 - It is physically possible to edit the RFC. It is a genuinely terrible idea to try to edit the RFC after there have been responses. How will the closer interpret !votes that were entered before it was changed? Think about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User: Robert McClenon, then we can either wait for it to end or end it citing reason 1 or 2 per wp:RFCEND. Lizzydarcy2008 thought you were suggesting we keep it AS Is (not edit on it ever again) or delete it so another version is added by her. Both Lizzydarcy2008, Nangears, and I now agree that this is not the correct question as all participants and proponents want to keep it, but the dispute is on the version. Is it possible to end it and start another one? If not, then we can wait. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:CherryPie94 - Okay. I will pull the RFC tag at some point in the next 24 hours. It is the RFC that we had originally said we wanted. Where are the two proposed versions of the wording for the second lede paragraph? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User: Robert McClenon, then we can either wait for it to end or end it citing reason 1 or 2 per wp:RFCEND. Lizzydarcy2008 thought you were suggesting we keep it AS Is (not edit on it ever again) or delete it so another version is added by her. Both Lizzydarcy2008, Nangears, and I now agree that this is not the correct question as all participants and proponents want to keep it, but the dispute is on the version. Is it possible to end it and start another one? If not, then we can wait. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:CherryPie94 - It is physically possible to edit the RFC. It is a genuinely terrible idea to try to edit the RFC after there have been responses. How will the closer interpret !votes that were entered before it was changed? Think about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- User: Robert McClenon, Thanks and sorry for any past mistakes. They are listed just under Different versions. I also added it to my sandbox, so you can refer to the sandbox if it makes it easier. User:CherryPie94/sandbox#Second lead paragraph (different RFC) and User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second Paragraph. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, are the voters supposed to read our statements before voting? One of the editors voted before I even got to write my statement. Also, how would other editors know about this survey? Are we supposed to ping editors? Another thing, the changes User:CherryPie94 made while the dispute was going on were not innocent. In fact, when I reverted one of her changes (rename Controversy to Historical Accuracy), she dragged me into a sock-puppet investigation and an edit-war complaint and this section title has been added to the list of things we've been arguing about. Also, it's not that I don't like her but I don't like what she has been doing to this page under the guise of "making it neutral". She has been emphasizing the negative aspects of the drama and downplaying, if not removing, the positive ones. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
User: Robert McClenon; After going through the entire discussion one thing which was evident is that, there is a debate between the proponents CherryPie94 and Lizzydarcy2008 on the fact that The King: Eternal Monarch is a successful drama or not. Facts/opinionated facts and changes proposed by Lizzydarcy2008 mostly seems to be flattery and pleasant to read, on the other side, facts/opinionated facts proposed by CherryPie94 seems to be quite exaggerated on both positive and negative aspects of drama's reception making it to seem neutral. One topic which was touched many times was the popularity of this drama outside South Korea. I myself a regular Kdrama watcher can say that: Yes, The King: Eternal Monarch was a popular drama overseas but others kdramas like Crash Landing on You and It's Okay to Not Be Okay were more popular overseas. Even considering it to be a important reason for its less viewership rating on TV is absurd. It can be said that drama was popular overseas and can be considered as a part of its success but regarding it as strong point/stand for lower viewership is not quite believable. Even the source added to make this fact acceptable is a topic of debate should not be added in neutral articles of Wikipedia. Dramas like Itaewon Class and Crash Landing on You also aired on online streaming sites like TVing and Netflix simultaneously with TV but still recorded strong ratings throughout their run. Even if you disregard my opinion on the fact of viewership the facts stated are true. As a conclusion, if I have to choose between the two proposed changes I will go with proponent CherryPie94. But the sentences are quite exaggerated and I will suggest them to be made simpler. Revolutionery (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Revolutionery: I never said it was not successful overseas, I just stated the fact that it got low domestic TV ratings (with source of course) and that is were the dispute started with me, though there was already edit wars on the page with other editors even before I started editing. My request is for the other user is instead of using flixpetrol or data from flixpetrol, we should try to show that it was popular overseas by other means (example: positive reviews, sale of brands advertised on the series achievements). Look at Crash Landing on You, the page did not even have to resort to using flixpetrol data to show that it was successful. Of course, when Netflix release their end of year data, we can add it to the page including mention of any end of year Korean awards. If you can provide any suggestions, I might edit my proposed second paragraph. Thanks for taking the time and reading everything and sorry that it was long. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Revolutionery: MOS:INTRO states that the lead section should establish or at least introduce the topic's noteworthiness. The most noteworthy aspect about the drama is its international success, yet CherryPie94's version mentions it being a "hit Netflix drama" as an afterthought in a long sentence that emphasizes the high anticipation, in keeping with her strategy to downplay the positive aspects of this drama and emphasize the negatives. Which is more noteworthy, the high anticipation or the international success? Due to its success, the drama was singled out as deserving of credit for the quarter earnings of its production company. In fact, the source noted, it "likely deserves MOST of the credit" but I did not go that far. Is this not noteworthy? Why is this not mentioned? Facts are not flattery. In fact, I did not use peacock terms MOS:INTRO advises against like "hit" as used in CherryPie94's version. The reason why overseas popularity is not pointed out in the Wiki pages of Crash Landing On You and It's Okay To Not Be Okay is because the lede sections of those dramas do not say anything about the low domestic ratings and high production budget, stones thrown by detractors at The King Eternal Monarch whenever they taunt it as a flop. Those who noted the negativity of the Wiki page of this drama have been trying to neutralize the negative lean. Regarding why the domestic ratings of Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were not affected by Netflix numbers as much as The King Eternal Monarch, Korea Herald reported that Netflix achieved "record-high subscriptions in South Korea in April" (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200526000284) presumably due to the pandemic. It will be noted that Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class had finished airing by April while The King Eternal Monarch had just started. Also, both Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were released by cable. How much more likely would existing cable subscribers switch to Netflix than domestic network TV viewers? Unless there is a survey to find this out, we cannot know for sure. But the fall in domestic TV ratings has been "largely attributed to the rise of streaming platforms". (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lizzydarcy2008: Well I don't have much time to write long essays to counter you. Well there are some things I would really like you to know.
1) You wrote: Regarding why the domestic ratings of Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were not affected by Netflix numbers as much as The King Eternal Monarch, Korea Herald reported that Netflix achieved "record-high subscriptions in South Korea in April."
So you mean to say that only the ratings of The King: Eternal Monarch was affected by streaming sites. Don't you think this will be applicable to all the dramas which released after April 2020 which also aired on streaming sites. The thing which is applicable to all the drama why has to be mentioned particularly in one drama's wikipedia page? It should be added on this particular page: Korean Drama.
2) You wrote: Also, both Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were released by cable. How much more likely would existing cable subscribers switch to Netflix than domestic network TV viewers? Unless there is a survey to find this out, we cannot know for sure. But the fall in domestic TV ratings has been "largely attributed to the rise of streaming platforms".
I will also like to ask how many people will likely switch to Netflix than free domestic network TV? As you said, we can't say anything until there is a survey. So isn't to early to say. I will once again repeat that your sources talk about fall in ratings not particularly for a specific drama but for all Kdramas so that should be added on a page which cater for all the Kdramas instead of adding on the page for a particular drama.
And regarding my view on Cherrypie94's proposed edits, I already conveyed her that it is exaggerated. I will suggest both of you that instead of fighting, work together. Afterall wikipedia is a community. Isn't?Revolutionery (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Revolutionery: My apologies if my comments are lengthy. I'm just trying to make sure to get my message across clearly as it seems it is not getting understood.
- (1) The King Eternal Monarch was not the only kdrama that was affected by the surge in popularity of Netflix in Korea in April. But it was the first highly-anticipated kdrama. It therefore bore the brunt of mostly negative speculations about why its ratings were lower than expected since the only official numbers available were the Nielsen ratings as Netflix has not released official numbers. It was only when Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not Be Okay suffered the same fate of lower-than-expected ratings was the cause of the problem realized. I agree, this warrants mention in Korean Drama page as well.
- (2) Yes, this topic should also be discussed in Korean Drama page. It is briefly mentioned in The King Eternal Monarch page to explain the lower-than-expected ratings. I shortened its discussion in the Reception section.
- @Revolutionery: My apologies if my comments are lengthy. I'm just trying to make sure to get my message across clearly as it seems it is not getting understood.
- User:CherryPie94, in the spirit of community suggested by User:Revolutionery, what do you think of this:
- "One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and production budget, the series set a record for the highest SBS Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings in 2020. However, competition from streaming platforms as well as controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes. Nevertheless, it was the most watched TV show on Netflix in several countries worldwide [1] and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart throughout its airing for eight consecutive weeks. Its success was one of the factors credited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of Studio Dragon, its production company." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:CherryPie94, in the spirit of community suggested by User:Revolutionery, what do you think of this:
- Lizzydarcy2008, please read MOS:UNFORTUNATELY. Also, I would prefer for people to vote instead of having to continuously repeat the same point about the use of flixpetrol data/Netflix charts. The votes would be the only way to reach a conclusion. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94: Is the MOS:UNFORTUNATELY for the use of "surmise"? It is in the Reception section. This is why I have not continued the discussion of the RFC on the Reception section yet to avoid this kind of confusion.
- Regarding Netflix, your version of the second paragraph also has reference to it. If you noticed, the suggestion above is a combination of your and my suggestions with exaggerations muted. It also removed violations against MOS:INTRO rules such as overly specific descriptions, e.g. $ amount, and peacock terms like "hit". The survey is a mockery since one editor voted even before I wrote my statement. How can voters vote fairly if they have not read the arguments? Editors who do not want to read the arguments should not vote. In the first place, I agreed to changing the "Keep As Is or Delete" survey to "Version A or B" one due to the confusion about the "Keep As Is or Delete" survey because you wanted to make changes to the kept version. This after causing the dispute to fail by making massive changes to the article before the terms of the RFCs were agreed on. So I agreed to change the choices for this RFC but did not reckon on the partiality of the voters. Also, I just noticed that editors of this page who had tried to lessen the negativity of this page had been blocked. So the voting population itself is skewed. Now I don't wonder why you've wrongfully accused me of sock-puppetry and edit-war after I tried to revert changes that you made while the dispute was going on. I do wonder why editors who update articles during disputes causing such disputes to fail are not subjected to the same disciplinary action. But, focusing on the task at hand, User:Revolutionery suggested we work together and that is what I'm trying to do. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lizzydarcy2008: I’m not talking about surmise, I sent you the specific section so read what I sent you. Also, I would no longer reply as I have already talking about the word “Hit” with you before in a different reply, go read my response there. The other 26 blocked users were sock puppets, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines and that is why they were blocked. Until Robert McClenon starts a new RFC with the correct question, I will not discuss this anymore and waste time. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "An Honest Review Of 'The King: Eternal Monarch'". Cosmopolitan, Philippines. 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2020-09-03.
RFC on Reception section
Should the Reception section be replaced with either of the following sections?
A. See User:CherryPie94/sandbox.
B. See User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Reception.
Please !vote in the Survey section as A or B or Unchanged. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. Any replies can go in the Threaded Discussion. (This will make it easier for the closer to assess consensus.) The two editors who are having the dispute should make their statements in Statements by Proponents. Do not reply to those statements. You may reply to them in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Statements by Proponents
CherryPie94
Just wanted to say that my suggested edit doesn't include any new text that is not already in the page. I just re-arranged paragraphs and added section headers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, I included it in my suggested edit and marked it red so that you could differentiate text already on the page and new text not on the page. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Lizzydarcy2008
The main differences between this and the current page are:
1. This section is subdivided into Cultural Performance, Critical Response, Cultural Disputes and Advisory Warnings
2. The section entitled "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warnings" is separated into "Cultural Disputes" and "Advisory Warnings" placed under the Reception section. It will be noted that WP:SECTION advises against using words with negative connotation for titles. "Inaccuracy" has a negative connotation. In addition, this is a fantasy drama, so talking about historical inaccuracies is incongruous.
3. This removes repetitious information to reduce sloppiness. For example, why say, the series started with a rating of 11.4%, went down to 5.2% then hovered around 6-8%, when everyone can see all the rating numbers in the Ratings section?
Please see my responses to CherryPie's notes in Threaded Discussion below. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk)
Survey
- A. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- A. Not going to bother reading the wall of text, but based on my perception of each user's sandbox, option A seems most neutral to me. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- A. Apt and neutral.Revolutionery (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- A. Nangears (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
Lizzydarcy2008's suggestion has lots of new text that is questionable:
1. "However, competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms led to lower domestic TV ratings in later episodes." none of the 5 sources says anything about competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve. God know where the "competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve" statement came from. The sources all talked about the ratings going lower, but none claimed that Netflix and Wavve were the cause.This is a case of combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
- Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, I included it in my suggested edit and marked it red so that you could differentiate text already on the page and new text not on the page. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2. "The series achieved international success on Netflix. Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol 37 of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE) showed the series in 9th place in Netflix World Ranking chart, the only Korean drama in the Top 10 list. The magazine also reported that the series "swept traffic in the densely populated Southeast Asian region - Hong Kong, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, (as well as) Nigeria, etc. It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. You can go in the page's history and see that lots of users removed those statements before saying the website is unreliable. None of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. Maybe a bigger discussion about Netflix daily top 10 chart reliability should be started in the Reliable sources Noticeboard if you still want to include such info.
3. "The discrepancy between the domestic TV ratings and the success of the series in the streaming platforms led The Korea Times to conclude, "local viewership is no longer a key metric."[12] Drama critic Eun Goo-seul said, "Nielsen Korea or TNMS’s audience rating method is a method of analyzing data from a sample group where audience rating survey devices are installed, and OTT ratings are excluded. If these ratings do not reflect the changes in the times, the criteria for determining advertisers who used ratings as a barometer for posting ads will inevitably change." Not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series. Seems like Lizzydarcy2008 is trying to justify the low ratings by adding unrelated things. Let the facts speak for themselves and don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
4. "According to International Business Times, "The K-Drama The King: Eternal Monarch starring Lee Min Ho and Kim Go Eun has reached another milestone. The drama is one of the most watched series among all the shows on Netflix. Here are the details of how much the K-drama was liked by the international audience. Currently, The King: Eternal Monarch occupies the first place among most watched Korean dramas on Netflix." This is per flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. Also I just checked, The King: Eternal Monarch is no longer #1 per flixpetrol, showing how unreliable that website is.
5. "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," is this Lizzydarcy2008's opinion again and is backed by no source. The is a clear attempt to dismiss any negative comments about the series.
6. "surmised" this is against WP:SAID. I already removed it from the page weeks ago and informed Lizzydarcy2008 about it. But she keeps adding it to dismiss any negative comments.
7. I'd say having it as "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is much better than "Cultural Disputes" as it explains the content. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
LizzyDarcy's responses to CherryPie's notes
1. "However, competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms led to lower domestic TV ratings in later episodes." none of the 5 sources says anything about competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve. God know where the "competition from streaming services Netflix and Wavve" statement came from. The sources all talked about the ratings going lower, but none claimed that Netflix and Wavve were the cause.This is a case of combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
According to Korea Times, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms". (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html)
2. "The series achieved international success on Netflix. Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol 37 of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE) showed the series in 9th place in Netflix World Ranking chart, the only Korean drama in the Top 10 list. The magazine also reported that the series "swept traffic in the densely populated Southeast Asian region - Hong Kong, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, (as well as) Nigeria, etc. It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. You can go in the page's history and see that lots of users removed those statements before saying the website is unreliable. None of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. Maybe a bigger discussion about Netflix daily top 10 chart reliability should be started in the Reliable sources Noticeboard if you still want to include such info.
Please show proof that Hallyu magazine data came from FlixPatrol and not directly from Netflix. The magazine mentions, "It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Flixpatrol, which is missing a lot of data about this drama, does not show this drama at the top of the Dominican Republic. It could only mean the magazine got its data directly from Netflix. Also, it is known that the ranking will change over time, that is the nature of ranking. This is why I always mention the volume number of the magazine. As of Vol.37 of this magazine released in July 2020, the drama was #9 worldwide. That would never change. This is like saying Gone With The Wind was the top-grossing film in 1939. It is not #1 anymore, but saying it was #1 in 1939 will always be true.
3. "The discrepancy between the domestic TV ratings and the success of the series in the streaming platforms led The Korea Times to conclude, "local viewership is no longer a key metric."[12] Drama critic Eun Goo-seul said, "Nielsen Korea or TNMS’s audience rating method is a method of analyzing data from a sample group where audience rating survey devices are installed, and OTT ratings are excluded. If these ratings do not reflect the changes in the times, the criteria for determining advertisers who used ratings as a barometer for posting ads will inevitably change." Not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series. Seems like Lizzydarcy2008 is trying to justify the low ratings by adding unrelated things. Let the facts speak for themselves and don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
You might want to look at yourself in the mirror when you say, "let the facts speak for themselves". You've been repeatedly pointing out the ratings, even repeating in narrative form what the Ratings table already tells readers instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. So, you can ram the low ratings down readers' throats but not allow an explanation of what caused them? Yet, what was that you put on the page of It's Okay To Not Be Okay to explain its ratings that are lower than that of The King Eternal Monarch? "This series aired on tvN, a cable channel/pay TV, which normally has a relatively smaller audience compared to free-to-air TV/public broadcasters (KBS, SBS, MBC and EBS)." And what do you know, the page of It's Okay To Not Be Okay, another highly anticipated series, that has more than 15,000 characters, thus requiring a second paragraph, does not have one talking about its lower-than-expected ratings and yet you clearly had time to add two more graphs showing the ratings of The King Eternal Monarch. Hmm... with all the accusations you've thrown at me throughout these discussions - an obsessed fan, making excuses for the series - I can't help but wonder whether you have been accusing me of what you are. I did hear about how competitive fans of the lead of It's Okay To Not Be Okay are towards the lead of The King Eternal Monarch. You should be thankful I'm not the obsessive fan you've been accusing me of, or you'll be up to your neck removing negative remarks from the page of your idol's series, as you've been smearing this series.
4. "According to International Business Times, "The K-Drama The King: Eternal Monarch starring Lee Min Ho and Kim Go Eun has reached another milestone. The drama is one of the most watched series among all the shows on Netflix. Here are the details of how much the K-drama was liked by the international audience. Currently, The King: Eternal Monarch occupies the first place among most watched Korean dramas on Netflix." This is per flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. Also I just checked, The King: Eternal Monarch is no longer #1 per flixpetrol, showing how unreliable that website is.
That had been replaced with another article.
5. "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," is this Lizzydarcy2008's opinion again and is backed by no source. The is a clear attempt to dismiss any negative comments about the series.
Please see #1. It is well-sourced and it's called deductive reasoning. These criticisms were lobbied at the drama before it was known that the low ratings were mainly caused by Netflix. Note what the International Business Times said, "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings". These are false, thus proven to be mere speculations not statements of fact because it was found out that the main reason the series failed to increase its ratings was Netflix.
6. "International Business Times surmised" this is against WP:SAID. I already removed it from the page weeks ago and informed Lizzydarcy2008 about it. But she keeps adding it to dismiss any negative comments.
See #5. Saying "surmised" is more appropriate than saying "stated" because it is speculation. It is not to avoid saying negative remarks. It is about using appropriate words. I'm sure I have pointed this out several times before.
7. I'd say having it as "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is much better than "Cultural Disputes" as it explains the content
The title "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy" is awkward and sloppy. What are you referring to as "stock images"? "Cultural Disputes" is more descriptive of what the whole section is about, not to mention being far from sloppy. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- 1. After you provided your source, I did amend that sentence in my sandbox. 2. The King is no longer the #1 k-series of 2020 on Netflix or #9 per flixpetrol. Netflix usually release it at the end of the year, see last years, it was reported on January 2020 not mid year. At the end of the year, if it really made the list, I would personally add it. But for now what I'm saying is that such changing charts/lists are not added to Wikipedia as they are insignificant and changes daily. Always, Global Hallyu got their info from flixpetrol (see screenshot), which is unreliable. I also asked here and here, and was told Netflix chart should not be used. 3. The statement is not related to the series and doesn't talk about the series, so it should not be added. 4. This is the 3 time you used a Korean source that you can't read and copy-paste text from Google Translate. Your sentence make no sense. What is "I've Goed Once?" The article says, "SBS's "The King: The King of Eternity," which finished airing this year, and KBS's recent weekend drama "Once Again," are also some of the representative works of Studio Dragon." The sentence is of no significance, what should the read understand from that? Also, this google translate sentence, "It is thanks to players like Studio Dragon that it was possible to produce a masterpiece drama targeting the global market" is not even talking about The King. 5. I see no point in adding "Back when the effect of Netflix and Wavve on the domestic TV ratings had not been fully grasped yet," as that is not stated in any source and is your words. No source said that it was criticized because people did not know "the effect of Netflix and Wavve". Plus, I moved all mention of the ratings to the viewership section in my sandbox, so there is no need for it to be before the criticism to invalidate it. 6. Read WP:SAID. Surmise is one of the words to avoid. 7. The architecture and the warships are all stock images, read the section. Also, although Koreaboo is unreliable, they even labeled it as historical inaccuracy here. Article #1 and Article #2 also refer to it as historical details. I have never seen it being called "Cultural dispute" which makes no sense if you read the title and the actual section. You said above that " WP:SECTION advises against using words with negative connotation for titles." I can't seem to find that one the page, those are the section title guidelines MOS:SECTIONS. Also see Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse and legal issues, Game of Thrones#Lighting issues and Game of Thrones#Sex and violence, all have negative connotation. When you read "Alcohol abuse and legal issues" you instantly know what the section is talking about, but with "Cultural dispute" it makes no sense.
- "Awkward and sloppy" are not an excuse on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you use guidelines instead of repeating those words, it would really not help your cause at all. Also, I don't know why you are stalking my edit history page and bringing up other pages, but I did not add "This series aired on tvN, a cable channel/pay TV, which normally has a relatively smaller audience compared to free-to-air TV/public broadcasters (KBS, SBS, MBC and EBS)" in It's Okay To Not Be Okay page, it was already on the page and I just moved it from under the table to above the table to keep text all together, you can go check. I only went to that page because another user asked me for help. Also, please read Wikipedia:Harassment (Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia), your statement "You should be thankful I'm not the obsessive fan you've been accusing me of, or you'll be up to your neck removing negative remarks from the page of your idol's series, as you've been smearing this series" is a threat and could cause you to be blocked as editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94:
- 1. Your sentence is still wrong because it still gives credence to speculation. What International Business Times surmised as the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings have been proven wrong by the finding that the rise of streaming services largely caused the low ratings.
- 2. How many times do I need to repeat this: rankings change - that's the nature of rankings. So when you cite rankings, you specify the time period the rankings were valid. For example, saying Gone with The Wind is #1 is not true in 2020, so you have to specify that Gone With The Wind was #1 in 1939. This will always be true. The same with my statement. The King Eternal Monarch is not anymore #9 worldwide today. But it was, in July 2020, when vol.37 of Global Hallyu Issue magazine was published. Even the article you referenced also shows top 10 lists.
- 3. That sentence explains why "local viewership is no longer a key metric". I wonder who is harassing and stalking who. I noticed that the references I cited in my previous arguments have been updated. Mr. Sunshine has now something negative in its second paragraph while It's Okay To Not be Okay has now rating numbers outside the Ratings table, both obviously added to invalidate my arguments. So you admit that what you have been doing with The King Eternal Monarch is wrong, since you consider somebody doing the same thing with It's Okay To Not be Okay a threat. You have the gall to mention harassment to me whom you actually harassed with your sock-puppetry and edit-war complaints after I reverted a change you did during a dispute.
- 4. It's Google translate. Another translation of that sentence is, "Studio Dragon has been able to build up its size by acquiring a production company & made it possible to produce masterpieces aimed at the global market. SBS' "The King Eternal Monarch" and KBS' "Once Again"'are representative works. That's significant.
- 5. That's based on sources and deductive reasoning. IBTimes made the speculation before the findings that the rise in streaming platforms largely caused the low ratings.
- 6. Read WP:SAID carefully. It said be cautious about using these words - you have to make sure it is appropriate. And in this case, it is appropriate. The fact that there is a more significant reason for the low ratings means IBTImes was speculating, i.e. surmising.
- 7. You yourself said Koreaboo is unrealiable, why use their term? This is yet another one of their unreliable statements. The issues with the temple, crown and robe not looking Korean enough as well as the Japanese warship looking Korean were all about the cultural representation of the objects. This is why they consulted a cultural critic. How does the term "Stock images" apply to the crown and robe? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Lede Section, again
User:CherryPie94, User:Lizzydarcy2008 - Please provide your proposed second paragraphs for the lede, for the revised RFC.
Both of you are personalizing the discussion too much. Do I need to post a request at WP:AN for administrative attention? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
CherryPie94's proposed second paragraphs
Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[1][2] the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks,[3][4] with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas.[5] On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to several factors such as competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.[6][7][8][9]
It is the same as the current one on the page except for the sentence in red. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Lizzydarcy2008's proposed second paragraphs
One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and budget,[10] the series premiered with the highest Friday-Saturday drama ratings for SBS in 2020.[11] While several factors including the rise of streaming platforms, controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes, [12] it was the most-watched title on Netflix in several countries[13][14] and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks after its first airing.[15]. Its international success was one of the reasons cited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company, Studio Dragon.[16]
Please see Threaded Discussion below for the differences between the current second paragraph and this proposed version Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
RFC: Second Paragraph of Lede
20240617010945 16:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Which paragraph should be used as the second paragraph of the lede section? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Specify 'A' or 'B' in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Threaded Discussion is for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A
Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[17][2] the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks,[3][4] with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas.[18] On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to several factors such as competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.[19][20][8][21]
B
One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and budget,[22] the series premiered with the highest Friday-Saturday drama ratings for SBS in 2020.[11] While several factors including the rise of streaming platforms, controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes, [12] it was the most-watched title on Netflix in several countries[13][14] and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks after its first airing.[15]. Its international success was one of the reasons cited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company, Studio Dragon.[16][23]
References
- ^ "Young actors move to online platforms as TV producers woo bankable veterans". Korean Herald. May 22, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
- ^ a b "[단독] 이정진, 김은숙 사단 합류…'더 킹 : 영원의 군주' 캐스팅". Edaily (in Korean). Retrieved September 4, 2019.
- ^ a b "The King: Eternal Monarch Breaks Premiere Records Despite Local Controversy". Elle Magazine, Singapore. 2020-04-22. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
- ^ a b "'놀면 뭐하니', 주간웨이브 예능 1위 최초 달성···'예능 왕좌 등극'".
- ^ "Did Lee Min Ho just post a major 'The King: Eternal Monarch' spoiler?". GMA News Online. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[E!시청률] '더 킹' 8.5% 기록, 2049는 5.1%…두 자릿수 못넘고 '시들'". sports.hankooki.com (in Korean). Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[SC초점] '더킹' 부진은 다 김은숙 탓? 디테일 부족→연출도 한몫했다". 스포츠조선 (in Kanuri). 2020-05-22. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ a b "Star screenwriter struggling with lower-than-expected popularity of 'The King'". Korea Herald. May 18, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
- ^ Sun-hwa, Dong (July 26, 2020). "'Viewership is not everything': K-dramas find norm-breaking recipe for success". Korea Times. Retrieved August 30, 2020.
- ^ "Young actors move to online platforms as TV producers woo bankable veterans". Korean Herald. May 22, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
- ^ a b "The King: Eternal Monarch Breaks Premiere Records Despite Local Controversy". Elle Magazine, Singapore. 2020-04-22. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
- ^ a b "'Viewership is not everything': K-dramas find norm-breaking recipe for success". TheKoreaTimes. 2020-07-26. Retrieved 2020-09-06.
- ^ a b "An Honest Review Of 'The King: Eternal Monarch'". Cosmopolitan, Philippines. 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2020-09-03.
- ^ a b "#TheKingEternalMonarch #Netflix ranking in 11 different countries". Twitter. 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-09-07.
- ^ a b "'놀면 뭐하니', 주간웨이브 예능 1위 최초 달성···'예능 왕좌 등극'".
- ^ a b "Studio Dragon Posts Best Ever Second Quarter Earnings Off of Strong Drama Performances". HanCinema. 2020-08-02. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
- ^ "Young actors move to online platforms as TV producers woo bankable veterans". Korean Herald. May 22, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
- ^ "Did Lee Min Ho just post a major 'The King: Eternal Monarch' spoiler?". GMA News Online. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[E!시청률] '더 킹' 8.5% 기록, 2049는 5.1%…두 자릿수 못넘고 '시들'". sports.hankooki.com (in Korean). Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ "[SC초점] '더킹' 부진은 다 김은숙 탓? 디테일 부족→연출도 한몫했다". 스포츠조선 (in Kanuri). 2020-05-22. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
- ^ Sun-hwa, Dong (July 26, 2020). "'Viewership is not everything': K-dramas find norm-breaking recipe for success". Korea Times. Retrieved August 30, 2020.
- ^ "Young actors move to online platforms as TV producers woo bankable veterans". Korean Herald. May 22, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
- ^ "CJ ENM: Profitability-focused Strategy Paying off". BusinessKorea. 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
Survey
- A. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- A. Revolutionery (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weakly A. (see comments below) Nangears (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion (RFC on second paragraph)
Improvements to current second paragraph with B:
1. Better sentence construction; break overlong sentence into separate sentences.
2. Replace "ensemble cast" with "cast" as former term refers to "cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production." One of the reasons for the high anticipation was that this series was Lee Min Ho's comeback drama after his military service. The term "ensemble cast" does not capture this while "cast" would cover details about any cast member including comeback from military service
4. Remove budget amount which violates MOS:INTRO that says, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Note that the amount is already mentioned in the Production section as well as the summary section at the right side of the page
5. Remove redundancy in "premiere" and "first episode" as they mean the same thing
6. Replace sentence containing the term "hit" violating MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'"
7. Add a noteworthy citation from production company. It will be noted that the lede section is supposed to establish or introduce the noteworthiness of the topic per MOS:INTRO. This citation adds weight to the global performance of the series. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Nangears, Revolutionery, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, now you can vote on the new RFC. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I have given my vote to version A, but as another user had pointed out in the previous RfC (forgive me for not remembering who it was, the discussion has been lengthy), I think it needs to be simplified for being written in an exaggerated manner. Thus I have only given my support weakly, just so that it is noted that I think the paragraph could still use improvement. Despite wanting to note my issues with A, there are still issues of balance with version B, so I can't support it over A. Particularly, I think the section on its low ratings falls into issues of editorializing, using the a structure of "while it had low ratings, it was still successful in other ways" (which I think is what CherryPie94 was trying to point to in the earlier RfC, linking to MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, although she didn't specify, so I don't wish to speak for her), and so minimizing the low ratings and negative reception to emphasize markers of its success. I think in content, version A is more balanced, so I have given my vote to it, but, for what it's worth, I think simplifying it would help improve the article. Nangears (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears, can you specify the things that need fixing or the exaggerated text, so that after the RFC I can go and fix them. Also about that MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, what you said is what I meant. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself, (as I'm not trying to presume what the other user I mentioned was suggesting for edits, who I went and checked and it was Revolutionery I was referring to), I think most of it is just simplifying the structure and reducing the wordy references to some of the show's achievements a bit. I think the current first sentence could be broken up into two separate sentences, with the first being the anticipation for the series and the high ratings for the premiere, with that second half of the sentence (about its record on SBS) simplified, because it seems overly wordy. Then, the second sentence would become your information on the success on streaming platforms, including Wavve and Netflix, but I would suggest eliminating the quote about Netflix as to me it makes it feel overly wordy, instead maybe just keep the same reference and use your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link). Also, grouping Wavve and Netflix together as streaming platforms I think would help clarify for the average Wikipedia reader what Wavve is, as I don't believe it has a Wikipedia article that a link would be able to quickly give that info. And I would leave the final sentence as is, as there aren't major issues that I can see and reflects the consensus reached on how to present the low domestic ratings and negative reception that has been discussed here on the talk page so far, although if it were possible to find a way to more simply list the criticisms of the screenplay, directing and editing, I think that would add a bit of balance as well. I was considering the wording of "crticisms of the production" but I fear this is too vague, as production can have multiple meanings when it comes to a TV show. I hope that was a clear way to explain it, and at least gives you some ideas for editing the paragraph for simplicity when the RfC closes. If you want clarification on anything, please just say so! Nangears (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
CherryPie94; As I was mentioned by one of the user(s) and I remember you asked me in previous RFC that's why I will just write what I think the paragraph should be. I will also ask Lizzydarcy2008 and Nangears to see and comment on this:
Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, production budget and extensive publicity, the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings. It maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks and saw popularity overseas. On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings. The reason claimed by The Korea Times was the competition from streaming platforms, while The Korea Herald explained that the drama "failed to impress audiences".
I hope sources can be added because I used all the sources which were provided by you two. And rest all the information provided by the two proponents can be added in the reception.Revolutionery (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Revolutionery the last sentence about the lower-than-expected ratings conflicts with the phrase about the series setting a record for SBS highest premiere ratings. To remove the conflict, it needs to be specified that it was the ratings in later episodes (after the premiere week-end) that were negatively affected. Another thing, controversies were among the major causes of low ratings, aside from the rise of streaming platforms. The controversies undermined the production, thus were a major reason it "failed to impress", though this is subjective since the series did impress some viewers. "Failed to impress" is also not neutral language. Korea Herald is actually one of the publications suspected of taking part in the sabotage against the series; it was one of the publications that kept republishing the controversies even after the production team had apologized for the cultural slips. So may newspaper names be kept out of the lede section? This would also be in keeping with MOS:INTRO rule about not being "overly specific". The series achieved tremendous success in Netflix but downplayed with this phrase "saw popularity overseas", while the low ratings take up two sentences. Is this neutral? fair? This is the reason I added the citation from the production company as it gives an idea of the extent of the success of the series without using Flixpatrol data. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008; I am not proposing anything to be added, I am just giving an opinion that it can something simpler like this, just for an idea to be incorporated by either of you; Idea Not Content. Revolutionery (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Revolutionery Your first one and a half sentences are actually good, although is "Hailing as" really necessary? The sentence looks more professional without it. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Revolutionery. Yours does seem good too but we have to replace the word “claim” per wp:CLAIM. We just have to wait for the RFC to finish, then we can improve the sentence structure. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Nangears, Revolutionery, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, CherryPie94, Robert McClenon There seems to be a misconception about "neutrality" and "balance". It does not mean for every one positive thing said about a topic, a negative thing needs to be presented. Please see the section about false balance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance) which states, "false balance may stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally". Please also see "Balancing aspects" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" which states, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The international success of the series on Netflix is its most significant achievement. Yet there isn't one full sentence about it in the lede section. This might be understandable before, when the only source of Netflix data was Flixpatrol. However, testaments to the international success of the series have been flowing from the second quarter reports of the production company. Other sources have also been found (please see B). The operative word is due or proportional weight. False balance is the reason for the negative lean of this page and what gave rise to this dispute. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 I don't know that anyone here thinks that neutrality and balance means saying one negative thing for each positive thing, as no one's proposed paragraph reflects that. Based on my suggested edit to CherryPie94's paragraph, there would be two positive sentences to one negative (which isn't actually changing the content of her paragraph, just restructuring it somewhat, so her paragraph has the same weighting, it just simpler to see once the long first sentence is broken up). But, as you said, it is not about a fixed number of positive to negative things that creates neutrality and balance, but rather a proportional weight based on notability and sources. In light of that, I think maybe you should examine your own lead paragraph. Considering that the low ratings, controversies, and criticisms is one of the most discussed aspects of the show, does it really seemed balanced to you to only have half a sentence in your proposed lead, which as I mentioned before has issues of editorializing? Its international success may be said to be its most significant achievement but that does not erase the significant amount of reliable, secondary sources that discusses its low ratings, criticisms, and controversies, both of these can be notable aspects of the show at once, and the lead should reflect that with proper weighting. You may feel that's unfair, but as I have said previously on this talk page, you cannot erase the negative reception the show received, even if you feel that it was unfairly maligned. Nangears (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears Based on earlier discussions about this page, the reason given for why we cannot put positive remarks only in the second paragraph as with other kdramas is to have "neutrality" and "balance". Thus, the production budget, low ratings, controversies and criticisms are supposed to make an appearance in the lede section. It will be noted that version B does mention all of these negatives. To satisfy the requirement for "balance", the first and second sentences of version B are both combinations of negative and positive aspects. The third sentence gives due weight to the topic's most notable achievement, its international success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 Right, a WP article needs to have a neutral point of view. But, as you already stated in an earlier comment that does not mean an equal amount of space dedicated to the both positives and negatives, that is, one positive for one negative, but rather it should be proportional to what is presented in reliable secondary sources. Also, as I mentioned above, my main problem with version B, and why I chose A over it, is not so much the basic points of it, (as I have seen that you added the negatives in), but the way those points are presented. You have half a sentence with negatives, and these negatives are downplayed through editorializing, despite it having a significant weight in secondary sources. (Also, hardly the main point here, but I'm unsure of why you mentioned production budget as a negative. Having a high production budget is usually considered a good thing, as people often take it as a sign of a well-produced, polished show, and thus why it is listed as something that added anticipation to the show. I would say your first sentence is wholly positive, as it is essentially "this was a highly anticipated show, that premiered with high ratings", but this is a minor point, as I have said, it does not need to be a one-to-one ratio of negatives and positives.) As I think the neutral point of view is the main issue at hand here, I voted for A as it seems to handle that neutrality better, and some minor edits for cleaning it up for easier reading is not as major of a concern in my opinion, for resolving the issue of which paragraph should be used. Nangears (talk)
- Nangears The reason high anticipation, especially the budget, are negative in the context of this drama is because that is the main reason the ratings are considered lower-than-expected. The ratings are actually solid, but detractors of this drama reckon it should have higher ratings considering the budget, writer and cast. While other kdramas are happy to garner 3% to 5% rating, this drama that rated as high as 11.6%, had lowest rating of 5.2% and averaged 7.7% rating was called a flop because of the high budget even though it broke-even before it aired. It's intriguing that version B, which applied Wiki rules like "not being overly specific" and followed a natural flow of events (anticipation, premiere rating, factors that affected domestic ratings in later episodes, streaming performance) seems to you like it downplayed the negativity. It's not that the negativity was downplayed; it was that the original paragraph emphasized the negativity and version B neutralized it. That "on the other hand" at the end of the paragraph puts the lower-than-expected ratings on par with the streaming success of the drama. The domestic ratings are much less significant than the streaming success. And as noted earlier, the ratings are solid. In any case "lower-than-expected" is judgmental, not neutral language, violating Wikipedia:Point of view. Only detractors keep emphasizing that the ratings are lower-than-expected. This is why Wikipedia is looking like it is being used as a tool by detractors to keep smearing this drama.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 The high anticipation is also tied to its high premiere ratings, so even if the large budget, cast, or director are brought up in relation to low ratings, that doesn't mean being a highly anticipated show is a negative thing. Version B downplayed the negativity based on the sentence structure that suffers from editiorializing, as I explained already in earlier comments. How are you determining that the domestic ratings are less significant than streaming success? Most of the sources I have seen (not just provided on this page, but in looking through many other reliable sources), as I mentioned to you in earlier discussions, talk about the low domestic ratings. Even many articles discussing its streaming success, at least mention as a caveat that it had low domestic ratings. "Lower-than-expected" is using the wording of secondary sources and therefore is not an editor inserting their POV, but a reflection of what sources say about the drama in a fairly wide consensus. There were high expectations for the drama, and its ratings were lower than that. Thus, it had lower-than-expected ratings. Nangears (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears Per Wikipedia:Point of view, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." That "lower-than-expected ratings" sentence puts Wikipedia smack in the middle of a dispute. It pits the domestic ratings against any success the drama achieved which grossly distorts what happened. By putting the domestic ratings on par with high anticipation, high premiere ratings and streaming performance, version A grossly downplays the streaming success of the drama.
- Here is the subliminal summary conveyed by version A, "The highly-anticipated drama started well and met with some success in the streaming market but flopped because it had lower-than-expected domestic ratings." Here is the summary of version B, "The highly-anticipated drama started well in the domestic market, met with issues that affected its domestic ratings in later episodes but was successful in the streaming market." This is the real story which detractors of this drama keep trying to distort. It puts the domestic rating in its proper place in the story. To see how much more significant streaming success is compared to domestic ratings, around the time the drama aired, the number of Netflix subscribers worldwide was 192 million while the population the domestic ratings were based on was 21 million South Korean households. And to repeat, the domestic ratings were solid, another thing detractors want the public to dismiss. Another thing to note, news sites were among the detractors, some of which changed their tune when the international success of the drama became known, meaning not all news articles are reliable. This is why we need to "carefully and critically analyze a variety of (so-called) reliable sources". Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 If it is putting WP in the middle of a dispute, please show a source for that, because many of the sources I saw, even those discussing international success, mention lower-than-expected ratings, so there does not seem to be any dispute on that point. Also, as I have stated earlier on the talk page, if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources. Nangears (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears I was trying to avoid another wall of text thus did not give examples of sources that turned around since I had already mentioned them in earlier discussions. Here are some: In April, Korea Times posted several criticisms about the series, including that it was struggling;[1] in July, it reported that "Viewership is not everything", that the drama has "conquered the most-watched TV show charts in various countries on Netflix".[2] In April, Hancinema published several criticisms about the drama[3]; in August, it reported that the drama deserves most of the credit for the success of its production company.[4] In July, Pinkvilla reported the drama as having failed to hook audiences[5]; in August, it posted an article about how the drama beat Crash Landing On You as most watched kdrama on Netflix in 2020.[6]
- There is no doubt the drama's ratings went down after the premiere week-end. Version B mentions how several factors affected the ratings in later episodes. The dispute is whether the emphasis on the "lower-than-expected ratings" in version A is warranted. As mentioned before, by putting it in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand", version A accords it as much significance as the items in the first sentence put together, i.e. high-anticipation, premiere rating and streaming success.
- I had previously pointed out how much more significant the streaming success is compared to the domestic ratings based on the numbers of Netflix subscribers and SK households. But it's not just the size of the pool of viewers that delineates the significance. The show aired on the domestic TV network SBS for 2 hours each week, a total of 16 hours, from April 17 to June 12. Whereas, from April 17 to today, Sep 15, it has been available for streaming on Netflix for 24 hours everyday of the week, a total of 3624 hours. It was among the top 10 most watched TV shows on Netflix in several countries up to Aug 21, more than two months after it last aired on SBS. This easily dwarfs the Nielsen viewing statistics. And it is still available for streaming on Netflix. Check Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media sites. People are still watching and re-watching it on Netflix. The highest-rated show in SK domestic networks in 2020 pulled in an average of 3.8 million viewers according to Nielsen Korea. This is for 16 viewership hours. With 192 million Netflix subscribers worldwide, there is no doubt at least that many watched the drama for at least 16 hours on Netflix. Netflix SK alone had 3.28 million subscribers in April and the show was #1 in Netflix Korea and in at least 10 other countries. Is it still "balanced" to pit SBS domestic ratings against streaming success? That the earnings of the production company skyrocketed in the second quarter of 2020 is a clear indication of how much more significant the streaming success was over the "lower-than-expected ratings".
- Thus, the issue is not the lower-than-expected ratings per se but how it is presented. Aside from according it more significance than it warrants, version A violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule that states, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". "Lower-than-expected ratings" disparages the drama. Note how the second sentence of version B mentions the ratings in a more neutral manner. In addition, version A does not specify that only the later episodes are affected, thus is misleading whereas, by mentioning the ratings right after the premiere ratings were mentioned and specifying that ratings of later episodes were affected, version B is more organic and correct. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 To try and be concise, I think the main issue here is that you need to recognize that the show can be very successful internationally and not so successful domestically, and those can both be true and significant things. Also, I think trying to argue that it is irrelevant how well a South Korean drama performed in South Korea seems to certainly be a stretch. What people on social media say or that it exists on Netflix does not negate or diminish the fact that it did not see huge popularity in SK. It can have found success elsewhere, and still not have done well with domestic viewership, those things do not negate each other as notable facts.
- To be a bit lengthier and address your sources, you deleted your mention to it after I began writing my response, but the mention of Soompi here and any petition is irrelevant as Soompi is not considered a reliable source. The Korea Times sources aren't changing their story, they are still emphasizing that it didn't do well with domestic ratings, but adds to this in the second article by saying that international interest in K-dramas has allowed studios to gain revenue from sources other than domestic viewership, pointing to Netflix covering production costs for dramas, so that a Korean drama that doesn't do well domestically is not necessarilly a net loss for the studio. For HanCinema, the first article even mentions that the drama may do better with international markets then it had been doing domestically, so it even acknowledges, before any data was in, that while it had low domestic ratings, it may still find success internationally, thus it later talking about its success in some way is not changing its story. The last source I'm not even sure is a reliable source (I have not encountered it before, but it seems to be a gossip site in the same vein as Soompi), but regardless, the first article is comparing domestic viewership in the first half of 2020 of various dramas, and then the second article is on the top Korean dramas on Netflix. So, again, this isn't contradicting itself, it has already been acknowledged by everyone on this talk page, as well as in the proposed versions of the lead, that the show had low domestic ratings and had success on streaming services. These two things can both be true, they aren't contradicting statements. Nangears (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nangears I have always accepted that the domestic TV ratings of later episodes were affected by unfavorable factors. The second sentence of version B says so. My main issues are:
- 1. The lower-than-expected ratings are given more significance than warranted in version A and that is the main cause of the negative lean of this page. The only area affected by the lower-than-expected ratings is the SBS domestic TV ratings, and only the later episodes. The drama had high premiere ratings, reached #1 on Wavve and Netflix SK charts which are also domestic ratings and did very well in the international market. Yet, the way version A is constructed puts the lower-than-expected domestic TV ratings in the second sentence on par with the premiere, Wavve and Netflix ratings in the first sentence. I think this was an attempt to "balance" the positive and negative aspects of the topic but instead created a false balance, violating Wikipedia:Point of view Balancing aspects where the discussion of lower-than-expected ratings is "disproportionate to (its) overall significance to the article topic".
- 2. The language is disparaging in violation with Wikipedia:Point of view Prefer nonjudgmental language. Note how version B tackles the subject of lower than expected ratings without resorting to sensationalistic language.
- 3. Version A does not specify that the lower-than-expected domestic ratings only cover the later episodes after the premiere week-end, thus is incorrect and misleading. Note how version B organically discusses the effect of unfavorable factors on the premiere ratings in later episodes. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 1. The lower-than-expected ratings are given more significance than warranted in version A and that is the main cause of the negative lean of this page. The only area affected by the lower-than-expected ratings is the SBS domestic TV ratings, and only the later episodes. The drama had high premiere ratings, reached #1 on Wavve and Netflix SK charts which are also domestic ratings and did very well in the international market. Yet, the way version A is constructed puts the lower-than-expected domestic TV ratings in the second sentence on par with the premiere, Wavve and Netflix ratings in the first sentence. I think this was an attempt to "balance" the positive and negative aspects of the topic but instead created a false balance, violating Wikipedia:Point of view Balancing aspects where the discussion of lower-than-expected ratings is "disproportionate to (its) overall significance to the article topic".
- Nangears I have always accepted that the domestic TV ratings of later episodes were affected by unfavorable factors. The second sentence of version B says so. My main issues are:
Nangears, Revolutionery, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, CherryPie94, Robert McClenon
To summarize the discussions, following are the flaws of the second paragraph:
1. One of the reasons for the high anticipation was because this series was Lee Min Ho's comeback drama after his military service. The term "ensemble cast" does not capture this while "cast" would cover details about any cast member including comeback from military service
2. Specifying the budget amount violates MOS:INTRO that states, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions... greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Note that the amount is already mentioned in the Production section as well as the summary section at the right side of the page
3. "Premiere" and "first episode" are redundant
4. Sentence containing the term "hit" violates MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'"
5. The paragraph does not specify that the lower-than-expected domestic ratings are caused by the rise of streaming service and only cover the later episodes after the premiere week-end, thus is incorrect and misleading. Note how version B organically discusses the effect of unfavorable factors on the premiere ratings in later episodes.
6. The domestic TV ratings are given more significance than warranted. The only area affected is the SBS domestic TV traffic, and only the later episodes. The drama had high premiere ratings, reached #1 on Wavve and Netflix SK charts which are also domestic ratings and did very well in the international market. Yet, the way the paragraph is constructed puts the domestic TV ratings in the second sentence on par with the premiere, Wavve and Netflix ratings in the first sentence. I think this was an attempt to "balance" the positive and negative aspects of the topic but instead created a false balance, violating Wikipedia:Point of view Balancing aspects where the discussion of domestic TV ratings is "disproportionate to (its) overall significance to the article topic".
7. The "lower-than-expected ratings" is disparaging in violation with Wikipedia:Point of view Prefer nonjudgmental language. Note how version B tackles the subject of the domestic ratings without resorting to sensationalistic, tabloid-like language.
8. The phrase "Hailing as" is extraneous and makes the paragraph read like a high-school term paper.
Version B attempts to correct these flaws. Those who care about the quality of Wikipedia writing should not allow these flaws to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that I'm mostly repeating what I have already said, so to try and keep this concise, I feel that the main point of contention in this RfC has actually been resolved, with both of the initial users in the discussion making some concessions in regards to their initial points, based on the sources presented. Now, most of these points above fall into one of two categories: a misuse of WP guidelines or a fixation on differing opinions on word choice. 1, 3, and 8 all fall into the latter category, as these are all relatively minor differences in word choice that aren't seriously impacting the quality of the article, they are mostly differing choices in phrasing. While I think their presence isn't really detracting, I'm also not opposed to them being removed, as I have said above, in voting for A, I do think it could use some clean up, which is where I agree with point 4, in removing the quote, just to give a simpler mention of the Netflix success, in a more streamlined manner. I have already addressed many of the places where I disagree on Lizzydarcy2008's use of WP guidelines, such as the issue of "lower-than-expected ratings" or the issue of "false balance", so I won't repeat myself here. To be concise, I don't think that those are actually issues at all, and in fact I would say following Lizzydarcy2008's proposal would be to the detriment of the lead, and thus my vote for A. Unless new arguments are put forth, I think I will refrain from further commenting on this RfC, as I think the arguments have become mostly circular, without any advancements to understanding or compromise, so I will let my vote stand as it is and let this close in its due course based on community consensus. Nangears (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Revolutionery, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, CherryPie94, Robert McClenon
- Nangears Thanks for your comments. My apologies for what may seem as a circular discussion but it appears the points I am trying to convey are not getting through, thus I try to paraphrase them in an attempt to make them better understood. Version A does not alleviate the negative bias of this page, the main reason for this dispute. The paragraph construction unfairly downplays the main achievement of this series - its international success - at the same time giving undue significance to what tabloids like to call "lower-than-expected" domestic TV ratings. Please see #5, 6 and 7. Does it not bother anyone else that this page is imparting misinformation about this topic? In addition, this page definitely does not sound encyclopedic with its sensationalistic, tabloid-like language. Another thing, what about version B is detrimental to the page? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop tagging me and other people, we all see your messages, and I already told you I will not discuss further and will wait for the votes. You don't want to compromise, edit without being biased, or listen to other people's points, so there is no need for me to keep replaying to you with the same points over and over again. Nangears already pointed to you that "you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Lizzydarcy2008 - I am not a participant in this discussion, and I initiated this RFC so that it could determine the consensus of the community without my mediation. You are being tiresome and tendentious. Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time? If you really think that other editors are being disruptive, you have the right to request administrative involvement at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first, because that would be likely to result in a warning to you, and possibly in a topic-ban. I do not accept your apology for the circular discussion. Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop tagging me and other people, we all see your messages, and I already told you I will not discuss further and will wait for the votes. You don't want to compromise, edit without being biased, or listen to other people's points, so there is no need for me to keep replaying to you with the same points over and over again. Nangears already pointed to you that "you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, Robert McClenon I was dragged into this dispute but when I dared voice my opinion, you accuse me of being "not willing to compromise", "biased", etc. Talk about twisting things around. I'm not the one refusing to heed facts and logic, refusing to have further discussions. In fact, I had agreed to Revolutionery's suggestion to work together and thought that was what my exchanges of ideas with him and Nangears were for. Isn't a Request for Comments intended to sort out issues by soliciting comments, not just have people vote without justifying why they voted a certain way? Per WP:Vote, "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." I have listed the flaws of version A. Version B corrects those flaws. I have replied to comments raised against version B. So I'm stumped why people would prefer the flawed version. There are two main issues making the second paragraph negatively biased: the most significant achievement of the series, its international success, has been downplayed while the lower-than-expected ratings have been blown out of proportion. The "walls of text" were attempts to point these out as well as to solicit comments that would help form a paragraph acceptable to everyone. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see more discussions about this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unpleasant_RFC_at_Talk%3AThe_King%3A_Eternal_Monarch. The issue comes down to version A espousing outdated misconceptions about the drama. Reliable information about the drama's success became available after the second quarter of the year. Version B includes up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, why has the lede section been updated? And with an additional comment about "mixed reviews" that was never discussed before added too. No consensus regarding our dispute has been achieved yet. Per WP:Vote, "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." In fact, Nangears suggested using "your own words to say that it was successful on Netflix (dropping out both the quote and the GMA News article link)" which I agree with as the quotes lower the credibility of the report, undermining the drama's most notable achievement. Note how version B presents this fact. The overriding consideration should be up-to-date and properly weighted information. The 30-day limit is just the bot's trigger to perform automated action; it may be overriden. You know very well the discussion is still ongoing in above-mentioned noticeboard and did not end on Sep 24 as you noted in your edit summary. Violating rules about editing the page while dispute is ongoing has become a habit of yours.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020
Please add the following line to the Reception section, end of second paragraph:
“With the drama's performance in the second quarter, Studio Dragon has recorded its highest sales and high margins ever." [7] [8][9] Syntyche S (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_288533.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ https://www.hancinema.net/hancinema-s-news-the-king-eternal-monarch-marks-new-low-points-for-fantasy-dramas-140877.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ https://www.hancinema.net/hancinema-s-news-studio-dragon-posts-best-ever-second-quarter-earnings-off-of-strong-drama-performances-143958.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/hollywood/itaewon-class-crash-landing-you-had-korean-audiences-hooked-first-half-king-eternal-monarch-fails-550004.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/hollywood/king-eternal-monarch-beats-crash-landing-you-become-most-watched-k-drama-netflix-2020-yet-554101.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)> - ^ "스튜디오드래곤, 안정적인 작품 라인업 보유-현대차증권".
- ^ "현대차證"스튜디오드래곤, 코로나19 비대면 확산…성장세 지속"".
- ^ "스튜디오드래곤, 언택트 확산에 성장기조 문제없다 [현대차증권]".
- It is already on the page, read the Reception section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
this source below it says TKEM is the 12th most watched series on Netflix in August 2020
TKEM is 12th most watched series on Netflix worldwide in August 2020 beating other k-dramas released at that time. source below https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/the-king-eternal-monarch-beats-crash-landing-on-you-to-become-most-watched-k-drama-on-netflix-in-2020-yet/ar-BB17v1zQ?li=AAggjDC
116.93.120.231 (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Being the number 12 most watched series on Netflix is from flixpetrol point system calculation, which was deemed unreliable here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable? Also, it was #12 on flixpetrol for days only, this is not the end of year never changing reports/charts. It is #21 now, and is surpassed by another Korean series at #11. Wait for Netflix’s end of year reports, if the drama is mentioned, we will add its achievement (that were reported by Netflix, not flixpetrol) here.CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
In the msn article they are saying ibtimes published 12th place on Netflix for TKEM. Its not flixpatrol its Ibtimes. is IBtimes reliable or not? anyways its your wish to add it thanks 116.93.120.231 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It actually went up to 8th place for the year on July 12[1]. But unfortunately, Flixpatrol is not considered reliable; it is missing a lot of data. For example, several countries where The King Eternal Monarch made the Top 10 were only added to Flixpatrol database weeks after its finale aired. Who knows, with complete data, TKEM might have reached higher than 8th. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)