Jump to content

Talk:Exo discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese Singles

[edit]

Should the Japanese singles be moved to their own table as "Single Albums"? It's misleading to have them in the same table as digital singles when they were only sold as physical CDs. Having them in that table makes it look very messy with a column for certifications that is not relevant to the digital singles.

Also, should we remove the column in that same table for Korean Billboard? It stopped producing numbers 4 years ago and it just looks cluttered with that there.

I'll go ahead and make those changes unless anyone has any better ideas. NicklausAU (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have a question regarding the Japanese Singles, I think we should consider Love Me Right ~romatic universe~ and Coming Over as EP because it contains more than tracks? QueenJ0805 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating sales numbers

[edit]

Can everyone please add references when they update sales numbers? If you don't it makes it impossible for anyone else to edit as they do not know which weeks are included and which are not. It's not that hard. Just copy and paste the references above it and change the week number and the chart rank number. NicklausEXO (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Exo discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

[edit]

Greetings I would like to request to edit the EXO WIKI page including their Discography and Filmography pages to give readers the updated information. For example their album sale for exact stop getting updated after July 2016 and the number of physical sale is actually incorrect . Thank You Ellie1425 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean and Chinese versions of the songs.

[edit]

Should the sales of Korean and Chinese versions of one song be counted as one? For example, the Korean version of "Love Me Right" sold 1,142,627, while the Chinese version sold 69,769. Total 1.2 million sales for the song, but the main single chart only counts the Korean version, which I find inaccurate since Exo is not only a Korean group, but consider also a Chinese group. GD.BB (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly the article looks messy, I think we need a new way to handle the discography of the group. It makes sense to count the sales together because it is the same album just in another language however both albums have different charting and sometimes the group also release a reissue of the album. It simply looks messy to include everything in one table. Also if we count the sales for the albums together, we would also have to count the sales of the lead singles together etc. It might be the best to ask an admin for their input. For now all I can suggest is to split the Korean albums from the Chinese albums but I'm not sure how useful it would be, the article would look clearly arranged but it also would get longer. In that case we could create an own article for the singles.--Thebestwinter (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, there are quite a lot of problems in the layout. The only reason I reverted your edit about combining K and C versions last time is because I tried to do it that way last year and someone 'corrected' me. A possible solution is similar to the albums section, where the sales in each country are listed in a single square. Instead of sales in different countries, you could list the K Ver: and M Ver: digital sales of each song in a single square meaning the K and C versions are in the same row. That doesn't solve the issue of whether or not to combine them, but would make it look neater rather than having a completely separate row for each C version of non-singles and not mention the C versions of singles at all NicklausAU (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Exo discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KMCIA certifications

[edit]

I'm removing this because the sources are not good enough for Wikipedia. The Yonhap article doesn't mention KMCIA or certification. It just says the album "surpassed the one-million mark" and Exo "reach[ed] platinum".

The Twitter/Instagram posts are also not good sources. They don't say where the plaques came from and it's possible they came from SM Entertainment (KMCIA is not on the plaque either).

As far as I know, South Korea has no official music recording certifications. Random86 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Wikipedia:Teahouse#EDITED_ARTICLES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up what Exo fans are saying on Twitter and most of them don't understand how Wikipedia works. These certifications were removed because they are not verifiable, not because rival fandoms and Wikipedia admins are trying to make Exo look less successful. Also, XOXO was not certified gold by RIAJ, as can be seen here when you search for "EXO". Random86 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EriEriXo, please note that while KMCIA (now called KMCA) has certifications now, only albums released since 2018 will be certified. You can see all the certifications here and the only Exo-related album so far is Blooming Days. Random86 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

[edit]

Good morning, I need to edit this page because the whole certification of album was deleted by some people 16sy (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@16sy: You may want to read the previous section titled "KMCIA certifications". Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 21:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted arcticle content

[edit]

@Jdgabriela: I removed what seems to be a copy-and-paste of the entire article on this talk page. If you have specific changes you want to make to the article, please use the code {{edit semi-protected}} followed by a description of the changes. You can leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The War sales

[edit]

Good day, correct me if i'm wrong, but The War sales (as per gaon chart) are incorrect for KOR. February chart revealed that there had been returns for The War (ch) in january (as february showed negative total). Thus the total should be 1,610,439 not 1,611,332? Kleool (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Growl sales/download figures

[edit]

Hello. This regards the derivation of the 2,026,000 downloads figure for the Growl single. Upon checking in detail the 13 listed citation links in the reference section the information does not correspond.

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

Are there secondary archived pages where Growl charted outside of the top 100 that have not been included to back up the 2M+ number? My preliminary searches have not turned up any reliable sources/articles to support this total figure. As one of the aims of wikipedia is to provide accurate information to its readers, I believe clarification as to how these chart numbers were put together, and justification as to why they are being maintained as correct, is warranted. - Zen A wikiwork (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That information was cited prior to late 2016, at which time the music sales publishing website Gaon posted sales of the top 400 on their charts, rather than the top 100 as they do currently. This practice is used on many kpop discography pages including those for prominent artists such as Big Bang, BTS and Girl's Generation. NicklausAU (NicklausAU) 04:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NicklausAU "That information was cited prior to late 2016, at which time the music sales publishing website Gaon posted sales of the top 400 on their charts"- then shouldn't there be additional sources to show the other sales figures that make up the 2M+ number if extra figures were visible only for a particular period of time? The regular layman won't know about the chart changes. How can they accept the numbers as legitimate if the references don't support this? That's my whole point. Even if this is how the chart worked the citations don't support the numbers so there should be something supplementary to do so. I took it for granted that most, if not all, chart data citations for singles reflect the numbers shown on various artists pages until I decided to actually start checking it myself. Billboard figures can be justified to the letter, oricon can as well to an extent, and where the numbers are not shown (according to sales rank), oricon news articles containing total figures are used for the references. Why is this not being done? And before you think I'm choosing this artist's page specifically to attack I am only asking because this is one of the larger sales figures and I thought it would be best to start here. - Zen A wikiwork (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two supporting sources needed for Exo figures please!

[edit]

Hello, I thought I would ask here because I figured the editors who maintain the sales for this discog page would be able to easily locate two needed reliable sources for DMUMT and Exact on the list of fastest selling albums. I came across it the other day and cleaned it up the section as best as I could but I'm not familiar with Exo content so I could not provide the sources. Whoever can do it, thank you for your help!!-- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NicklausAU: maybe you can help? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Album charts from Billboard Japan

[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts/Sourcing guide/Japan says not to list album charts and sales from Billboard Japan. I'm not sure how to remove it without messing up the tables, so if someone can, please let me know. lullabying (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues

[edit]

Carlobunnie, Perhaps you might be able to help. I am a bit confused about the way the chart positions for the studio albums and their reissues have been presented in the table. The japanese chart positions for the studio albums look fine to me, but for the reissued albums, any idea why have the japanese chart positions been omitted from the table? For example, take Exodus- both versions of the reissue Love Me Right charted at 9 and 14 respectively. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: unfortunately I have no clue about why the exo discog article is the way it is. I was gonna suggest asking NicklausAU since he used to be pretty active with exo's pages but he hasn't been around since April apparently and idk any other exo editor. I noticed the Exodus page doesn't cite any Oricon refs for the reissue. It entered the BBJ Hot Albums chart at #39 and that isn't there either. Want me to help locate archived refs in the meantime or you're good? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carlobunnie, It would be great if you could have a look at the refs, I am low-key planning on getting this ready for FL and would gladly appreciate any help with this. If you are willing to, we could make this ready together? I shall start working on the lead section in the meantime. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile: I'll take a look later today/tomorrow. Also, Chiyako92 and Kleool are really good with charts and finding related stuff. Might I suggest enlisting their help as well if they have the time? Carlobunnie (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carlobunnie, Sounds great to me! :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile and Carlobunnie: hello! Yeah, i can help out a bit. How much of help are we talking about (what is approx "battle plan")? should i dig up oricon links for now (i'm surprised there are so many links without archives added, so i could try to dig up some of those)? Kleool (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kleool, hi :) ! Thank you for your response. For the starters, retrieving the chart links for the Oricon ones could be done. I am planning to get this article ready for an FL, though I'm not sure if it would be possible since the article seemingly has multiple issues. I am confused about why some of the chart positions for the reissues have been omitted, etc., like I was mentioning above to Carlobunnie. Also, the music video section completely ignores any mentions of the corresponding directors (I am also planning to look up those). Finally, the lead section needs quite a bit of expansion. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: the thing with reissues on oricon is that they're considered kinda(?) deluxe versions of the "main" album. Thus, you could say that the "main" album's peak is when it's released and the reissue is when it charts by "main" album rising/re-entering. It's quite messy. My theory for XOXO reissue not having chart positions is because it was set as "peak"for the "main" album. In my opinion Twice discography#Reissues is a good example of how main album is divided off from reissue. Kleool (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial archive searching I did last night showed that the Love Me Right reissue did not chart anywhere on Oricon. The 'LMR ~romantic universe~' version released later in october did but I think that was because it was a special japanese release, there were 3 oricon news articles about it too. The only significant charting I found for the LMR reissue was its debut @ #39 on the BBJ Hot Albums chart dd June 15, 2015. It dropped down to #55 the following week, then dropped out of the chart altogether the week after that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlobunnie: kindly refer to the paragraph above, where i initially replied to Ashley, it somewhat explains what you found (or in this case - didn't find) Kleool (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleool: I saw what you said, no worries. I'd actually meant to share that I hadn't found any records earlier but got distracted on wiki with updating other articles and forgot lol. As regards the BB ranking, I'm leaving the links here so that however the table update is handled, atleast the info for this particular thing is easily accessible.
Also, I like how the Twice table notes the reissues. Didn't make it through every single archive of when exodus was charting for 2015 up to year end but the majority were logged on way back. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really looks like there are many issues, at the moment I don't know where to start. If we can devise a "battle plan" (as Kleool called it) of all the things that need to be done, I'd be willing to help. --Chiyako92 08:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlobunnie, Kleool, Chiyako92, Hi! :) Will it be okay to format the tables like the ones on Twice's discography page and separate the reissues from the main albums? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support it, it looks neat. --Chiyako92 12:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it looks neater, and this design is widely used (BTS, Seventeen, Twice etc pages) Kleool (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exo_discography&oldid=1206719217"