# Talk:Kang Daniel

Non-official/legal personal relationship such as dating shall be omitted from a biography article as it has no notability to the defining aspect of the subject in the article. Only relationship that is notable such as marriage (has legal power) or has a defining conjunction shall be included.
Moreover since only marriage will be recorded in an article and not past dating (unless the past dating somehow has a great influence in the life or the work of the subject), it's futile to add every single dating relationship and later delete it if the respective couple breaks up.--Moon Gin (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We judge personal relationships by notability, i.e,. whether they're covered by multiple reliable sources, not by legal status. In today's world, whether a couple is married or not is inconsequential. For example, Graeme Gibson was widely known as the partner of Margaret Atwood, even though they were never married. Personal relationships for celebrities are even more notable, as they're often at the center of media attention. Take a look at Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber, for example. BTW, you've already reverted four times. Please read WP:3RR if you're unaware of the rule. -Zanhe (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The relationship between the subject and his respective couple here is purely trivial and not even relevant or notable to the subject in the article. Moreover since only marriage or long-term relationship will be recorded in an article and not past dating (unless the past dating somehow has a great influence in the life or the work of the subject), it's futile to add every single dating relationship and later delete it if the respective couple breaks up. This is an encyclopedia and not a gossip magazine that tracks dating record of a particular subject.--Moon Gin (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Relationships that are widely covered by reliable mainstream sources are notable. If they break up, we just add a note that they've broken up rather than delete it as if nothing had happened. This is standard practice and perfectly encyclopedic. And did you even bother to look at the articles I listed above? -Zanhe (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have added irrelevant information Template to the part and we can have other editors to voice their opinion whether this information is indeed relevant or just purely trivial and can be removed. And regarding your example, Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez had an on and off relationship for 8 years and that's a long-lasting relationship that might be notable to the subject in the article, while in this case, the relationship is not even one year old and largely irrelevant and only trivial to the subject.--Moon Gin (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Miley Cyrus, a Good Article, lists about ten of her exes in addition to her husband, and only two of them lasted more than a year. Even a six-week-long relationship is listed. -Zanhe (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Miley Cyrus list of ten exes can arguably be added to her personal life as it is one of the defining parts of her life, which is a lot (TEN) of on and off relationship with multiple partners. While the subject in this article only has one and still less than a year relationship so far which makes the topic is largely irrelevant to the subject and is followed by other information which even has less relevance which is the trending topic in the Philippines. What makes it so special compared to the other parts of the world? --Moon Gin (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're making circular arguments that are not making any sense. Being the most tweeted topic in a major foreign country is an indication of the couple's worldwide influence, so it's certainly relevant. If we have solid data about his influence in other countries, then it should also be added to the article. -Zanhe (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it makes sense, since it nitpicks only one country (which is not even the native country of the subject) and not the rest of the world. It would be more relevant to the article if the topic is tweeted by more countries (not just a particular foreign country) or if it's topping the topic in the native country of the subject.--Moon Gin (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you mean cherrypicking? It would be cherrypicking if other countries' data were available but ignored, which AFAIK is not the case. If you have data demonstrating his influence in Korea and/or other major countries, please feel free to add them. -Zanhe (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a dating history should be added to his wiki page. Baekyeon (Baekhyun + Taeyeon)had a much bigger impact in korea and worldwide yet no mention about it in their pages :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byun_Baek-hyun .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeyeon .  It's just not a common practice for kpop idols to have their dating histroy in their wiki pages. American celbrities are more free and loud about relationships and it's a whole different culture, kpop idols are lowkey about dating and share no details about it. --EternalRose0 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@EternalRose0: Judging by your edit history, it seems that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to support Moon Gin in content disputes regarding Kang Daniel. I've filed an SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moon Gin. -Zanhe (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The general consensus among K-pop articles is actually to include CURRENT relationships if they are reliably sourced, and to remove former insignificant relationships. Taeyeon and Baekhyuns relationship was removed because it is a former insignificant relationship. Read discussion here and another discussion linked in that section. In your opening sentence you also stated “non-official/legal relationships”, the relationship may not be a marriage but it is certainly official and has been confirmed by both Kang and JYP. If you’re stating that relationships aren’t included at all unless they’re a marriage or they have children, please link to this consensus and show us proof. Until then, I’m removing the tag you added. It is ridiculous that other nationality people can have their current relationship yet you’re adamant that an idol can’t. Alex  (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually this consensus is a bit weird, it should either be there forever even after they break up (which they obviously will within several months, its just a marketing campaign for popularity, enforced by agencies) or we should remove it since the beginning if this is trivial and not significant to his career. Notability should be permanent and not temporary, i.e. if its notable that this relationship is mentioned, it should be listed there even after they break up, no point of deleting it afterwards, WIkipedia is not a reporting website for current events only. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. It should be either notable and relevant or not at all. If it's deemed as a significant and relevant thing in the life of the subject, it should stay there and not serve as an temporary information. Otherwise it's purely trivial and shall be omitted from the article. And I'm returning the tag I added since at this point we haven't reached consensus whether it's a relevant information or not--Moon Gin (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
That seems like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If a relationship is deemed notable (i.e. widely reported in mainstream media, as in this case), it should be mentioned in the bio even after it's broken up. If not notable (such as rumours reported only on gossip sites or tabloids), then it should not be mentioned at all. This is basically the prevalent practice across Wikipedia, and there's no reason K-pop stars should be treated differently. -Zanhe (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with Moon Gin - notable people having relationships itself is not notable. As much as Korean entertainment news likes to report on which hot idol is dating who, it doesn't really add anything to their career unless the dating is improper or causes a scandal. It makes a few headlines, it dies down... nothing of significance is added. So just because reliable media reports on it doesn't make it worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Evaders99 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Your view is based on the notion that biographies are only about careers and scandals, which is demonstrably false. It's true that a person's notability is mostly based on their career, but once notability is established, a complete biography needs to include all major aspects of the person's life, and personal relationships are an integral part of it. Just check out the articles listed under WP:Featured articles#Media biographies, recognized as Wikipedia's best written celebrity biographies, and they virtually all include the person's publicly known romantic relationships, even brief ones. BTW, obsession with celebrity dating is by no means a purely Korean phenomenon. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's incorrect and flawed to base a notable relationship based on whether it's largely reported in a media or not. A notability of a relationship for a subject in an encyclopedia is not based on that factor alone, but also how it is notable to the subject overall and not just for momentary period. As Evanders99 stated "It makes a few headlines, it dies down... nothing of significance is added". Hence I still vote for the part to be omitted from the article.--Moon Gin (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Media coverage will of course die down eventually, but that's irrelevant. The featured article Brad Pitt, for example, mentions his little-known relationships with three actresses from the 1980s and 90s, in addition to his marriages. All fame is temporary, and what are you planning to do when Kang Daniel eventually loses his popularity? Delete everything? -Zanhe (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you don't get my point. The point is you try to justify the relationship as worthy of omission due to the coverage it receives. However, while it's true, at this point it's largely insignificant and I still opt to leave it out. --Moon Gin (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You're talking about small subset of large celebrities with long biographies. A complete biography of every notable individual including all dating info is trivial and unnecessary. In fact, WP:BLP says we should write biographies "conservatively" - notability is not relevance WP:NOTREL. A celebrity like Brad Pitt that has known celebrity relations (including one he married) that extend his entire career and includes significant headlines is indeed relevant ("importance in context"), he talks about these relationships in Hollywood and his family. A Kpop star that dates another Kpop star with minimal news is not. They are allowed to date but they rarely talk about it. In fact, relative unknown people policy would have us "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Editors are responsible for subjective contents; we ultimately make the consensus whether this is suitable or not.Evaders99 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
"Minimal news"? "Relatively unknown"? Are you serious? We're talking about two of the biggest names in K-pop here. The news of their confirmed relationship was all over the place this summer. Google news has 52,000+ articles about it; even serious broadsheets such as SCMP, The Straits Times, Korea Herald, etc. reported the news. It became the most tweeted news in the Philippines, and the couple is instantly proclaimed a K-pop power couple by media from Indonesia to the UK (all of this is sourced in the article). -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
To reach a decision/consensus regarding this matter, I propose editors to vote on this matter to resolve this issue and whether we should include the info or not.--Moon Gin (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Korean celebrities with longer and more notable public relationships such as Lee Minho & Bae Suzy, IU & Jang Kiha, and Im Yoonah & Lee Seunggi do not have it listed on either individuals pages, so why should it be any different in this case.--Unlimitedd (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please excuse my lack of knowledge about personal lives of Korean celebrities, but I am familiar with many Western and Chinese celebrity articles, most of which mention their publicly known relationships (see the Featured Articles I linked to earlier, which have been scrutinized by many of Wikipedia's most experienced editors). Could you explain why Korean celebrities should be treated differently? -Zanhe (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m not familiar with any Chinese celebrities but in terms of Korean vs Western celebrities, their personal relationships are handled very differently in the media. Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo and the simple fact that a gossip site stalked, took pictures, posted and forced the two individuals to comment on the situation should be enough reason to not include this. Pages of other Korean celebrities (such as Taeyeon, Hani, Baekhyun, Kai, Kim Junsu etc.) omit the individuals past relationships and this is a Korean celebrity so his page should follow suit rather than treating it as a Western celebrity.--Unlimitedd (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information just because people may feel uncomfortable about it. And in this case, Kang Daniel and Park Jihyo have publicly acknowledged their relationship, so there's no concern about respecting their privacy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it odd that this particular relationship is the only one being harped on while others that have lasted longer and had more media coverage are not present on either Korean celebrities page. For consistency purposes, I still think it should be deleted. How do we move on from here?--Unlimitedd (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If you think it should be removed then you can vote for its removal. I also vote for its removal. So it would be 2 votes for removal. --Moon Gin (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To reach a decision/consensus regarding this matter, I propose editors to vote on this matter to resolve this issue and whether we should include the info or not. --Moon Gin (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If it is for consistency, then why the relationship is noted on Jihyo's page? Also, this news was mentioned in many different news media internationally, how is this not notable? robertsky (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of things are mentioned in all kinds of news media. It doesn't mean it is notable - context is everything here WP:VNOTSUFF. I think most dating news would fall under routine news coverage WP:SBST. Evaders99 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep: I already discussed it on Talk:Kim_Hee-chul#Keep_or_remove which also became an issue because of this discussion here. This weirdly seems like an issue only on male articles, in Kang Daniel and Kim Hee-chul's articles, while Momo and Jihyo's articles are not touched. For people saying that is not signification as it is no a long term relationship, and when they date longer then we can add it, can you please give me the duration of they have to date before it becomes significant? I asked that here: Talk:Kim_Hee-chul#Keep_or_remove and no one can give a duration as that would be subjectivity. So please don't use "only long term relationship are allowed" excuse  as no one can judge when it becomes a long term relationship. Also, please see this Reversing the eradication of the relationships section on Korean artists' pages and let's vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Kang Daniel at his fan-sign event in Busan, South Korea on August 1, 2019.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Update the "2020-Present" subsection of the career section. Kang Daniel's "Cyan" album is now out. 70.54.27.74 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Alex  (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kang Daniel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Flurrious (talk · contribs) 01:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This article passes the Good article criteria.

   Well written: It is well structured and clearly written.
   Verifiable with no original research: Thoroughly cited inline.
   Broad in its coverage: Yes, covers career, influence, and other ventures well.
   Neutral: Handles contract suspension well.
   Stable: Seems fine.
   Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Has good photos, along with discography and filmography links.

Suggestion for improvement: Impact and influence paragraphs are long and breaking them up could increase readability.

Hi, thank you for reviewing the article. I've just applied this suggestion! HrToss (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Other reviewers suggested I be more thorough, so I hope the following helps. Flurrious (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


### Comments
Article is ranked B class. It's a good length at 4,502 words, with a nice infobox.
Images have had their licenses reviewed.
Spot checked some of the 211 references.
Overall, I think it is substantive and well written.
Suggestions for improvement:


#### 2019: Solo debut with Color on Me
2nd paragraph - 
The second paragraph lists a number of fan events, consider summarizing them. WP:PROSELINE

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


#### 2020–2021: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and MC ventures
Organizing the last paragraph by date is a little choppy, could summarize about Kang's experience as an MC.

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


#### 2022: Acting debut and The Story
Kang revealed that he was convinced to give this proposal a try for the comfortable atmosphere created by being around people his age.
Could be a little more clear and concise without the passive voice.
Could break this into two paragraphs. The Story part could favor summary over dates.

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


#### Impact and influence
The sentence with The Barberettes could be a little clearer, may not need the revealed they were fans part.
Consider summarizing the The Naver TV's Most Popular Videos lists.

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


#### Endorsements
Consider summarizing some of the modeling examples in the In September 2017 paragraph.

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


#### Fashion and modelling
Wasn't immediately clear to me what a rare high in sales was - might mention selling out the reprint.

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


### Copyright violations:
Earwig's Copyvio Detector Tool found a few identical phrases, please paraphrase.
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/
one of the most sought-after stars among coveted luxury
selected as an honorary ambassador for the special
his first collaboration with American artists
actor, as well as the streaming ... production debut in South Korea
Career Break Due to Health Issues

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


### Neutral point of view
Could improve neutrality a little in these phrases:
Furthering his success as a solo artist
celebrate the sneaker line
enjoyed exclusive content

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 1:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


### Status query
Flurrious, HrToss, where does this review stand? HrToss's most recent edit to the article was at the end of last month, and the last edit to this page was the middle of June. Can this nomination get moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think if the copyright and proseline concerns were fixed, would be in good shape. Flurrious (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Flurrious and HrToss: Any updates on the remaining issues? This should probably move towards closure. CMD (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I still see copyright and proseline issues. Flurrious (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Btspurplegalaxy for your fixes.Flurrious (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. Do you see where there can be any more improvements? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
My main suggestion would be to think how much detail is necessary. The best articles have this attribute:
It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Flurrious (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll take that into consideration. Can I conclude that the review is completed and ready to be promoted? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How should Kang's additional cover model coverage be included? The edit on Jan 14th did not include all magazine covers Kang featured on. It already excluded some smaller magazines (The Star and 1st Look) and digital-only fashion magazine covers (W Korea).
It seems some magazine cover coverage (e.g. Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Bella Hadid, Jennie, CL, GD) named notable magazine covers in succession. Some didn't have written context for each major appearance. 
Here are some suggestions for Kang's cover appearances.
Excluding?

Smaller entertainment magazines: BeatRoute and Flaunt
Korean fashion magazines that do not have an international version: Singles
Including?

Major fashion magazines: GQ, Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, Grazia
Major music magazine: Rolling Stone (Korea and India)
RSK first special edition: https://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=112&aid=0003436845
Additional India context, selected as main cover: https://rollingstoneindia.com/rolling-stone-collectors-edition-the-k-music-spotlight-issue/
WWD Korea - first male celebrity model selected: https://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=112&aid=0003437191
Unsure whether to include?

Ray Li - not common for Korean ethnicity cover models, previous ones being Krystal and Yoona
Cine21 - solo cover for a debut work is not a common occurrence
Explori (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Explori Fyi, no bots reverted you hence I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion. The last time a bot made an edit in this article was on 7 November 2022. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Script, not bot, was what I saw but for some reason typed bot. It was deleted in the edit. Explori (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)