User talk


From DramaWiki


Photo Changes[edit]

OMG! Did you actually like something I submitted. No way. Thank you groink. And you know you it was unnecessary for to be so rude. I am trying to understand your mannual. It is just so different.Dana 23:57, 15 Aug 2009 (CDT)

Wrong! I reverted that photo. The photos you're picking are along the line of being faggy, fan-like, with cutey poses and such. We do not want that! We want something you'd see on a passport - a photo of the face - with the head properly straight and virtually nothing showing below the neck. This is explained in the style guide. Groink 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
And as far as being rude, YOU'RE the one who's causing the trouble here! You're bringing the ideology of Crunchy Roll, which BTW is s_hit of a wiki and the admins there are nothing but money eating a_ssholes, and you really should burn in Hell for just being associated with them. DramaWiki is THE NUMBER ONE ASIAN DRAMA WIKI ON THE PLANET! And yet, you're trying to change things here. That is cause for us being rude - you're basically coming to our home, s_hitting on our lawn, and claiming that you have some God-given right to do this. It just isn't going to pass with us. Groink 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I don't understand you. So you would consider that 2007 Spris photo of Lee joon Gi to be passport appropriate? That isn't a passport appropriate photo though. And I am not trying to overtake your site. I am just trying to help. And I see you have a thing against CR well that is your problem really. But my fan group is there and we are not ready to move yet, so. Anyways you need to change your attitude Groink it's not very nice, especially when I wasn't rude back. Anyways I submitted another photo for Lee Joon Gi can you tell me if it is better? Dana 24:05, 15 Aug 2009 (CDT)
My attitude has gotten me very far in my 41 years of life, and over 25 years in cyberspace. You just don't get it do you? You SAY you're not rude, but your aggressive editing, and the dozens of reminders from four other editors of your conduct being ignored is WORSE that anything I've said. Again, you do not shit on someone else's lawn and expect the owner to clean it up. You seem like a very young fandork for this Lee guy. You'll learn with time how things are handled on the Internet. As for the last photo, this is a very good photo. Why it took you 24 hours and several uploads later to figure this out, we'll never know. That 2007 photo (just knowing that proves you're a fandork) was as close to passport quality as we've seen - and it was better than all your other offerings up to now. Groink 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright "Fan Dork". Wow! Have you never been a fan of anything in your of 41 years. Just because I am a fan that doesn't make me any less of a person than what you are Groink. So please talk to me as if you were talking to colleague or even a stranger, and not an idot. I know it may be asking much but please. I am sorry it took me 24 hours and several uploads to realize what it was that you wanted. We can't all be as smart as you. Am I right? And by the way i looked up what date that spris photo was published and you don't have to be a fan dork to know that that photo isn't passport material.Dana 24:35, 15 Aug 2009 (CDT)
When did I ever say that the 2007 photo was passport quality? I said before that it was the closest thing to being passport quality that DramaWiki has seen. We DO allow that! But what you were doing is sending DramaWiki backwards in your contributions. And just now, you uploaded yet another photo showing the guy's chest. We do NOT want to see the chest or shoulders! We want to see the FACE! The FACE! We want to see down to his chin. Again, if there wasn't any other photo available on the planet that fit this description, then we could let the photo slide. But once we've found a perfect photo, trying to send the photo quality backwards is not justified. Again, the age of the photo is NONE of our concern. If the best photo dates back to 1980, then so be it. Groink 00:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right I don't understand. Are members allowed to change anything even if they go with the rules?Dana 26:37, 15 Aug 2009 (CDT)
The photos should only be replaced IF and ONLY IF the current photo is so full out of compliance it is ridiculous. You don't get the "spirit" of our rules here. I'd guess that 70-percent of the photos on DramaWiki (we're talking thousands of photos) does somewhat break one of the rules. But what you're doing is basically giving a guy a speeding ticket for going 11km/h on a 10km/h highway. We americans would say "Let some shit slide." I'm assuming that English is a secondary language for you. The culture of DramaWiki is not 100-percent, absolutely, positively must be on-spot for every regulation here. Again, there are rules, and then there are the spirit of the rules. I really don't think that needs to be documented - it is human nature. Groink 02:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh so in other words it's about what the moderators and administrators want, and not the public. You can do whatever you want and even bend the rules and the public should sit back and take it up the ass. Oh ok I see now. Dana 25:20, 15 Aug 2009 (CDT)
Well, you DO have very lousy taste in imagery. Let's be honest here - throwing the rule book out, many of the photos you uploaded are just lousy quality! The color and hue is way off. Bad shadowing. Press conferences do not offer good imagery, as they tend to have bad lighting. Studio photos are always better than live/press conference photos. And yes, you are correct in that DramaWiki is indeed a semi-closed wiki, unlike Crunchyroll, Wikipedia, etc., and the major contributing editors here have a set idea on how we want things to look here. Although you have an account here, you are very far from being active, and during the two years of inactivity, us more active contributors have set a feel/look on DramaWiki. We don't appreciate someone like you popping in suddenly and attempt to replace potentially thousands of images. Just stop editing for today, sit back and ponder over what the problems are here. Groink 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes to KDrama formatting guides[edit]

I did some minor changes to the KDrama formatting guides which basically reflect the currently used formatting. Please have a look. Perhaps some of the general things can also be applied to the JDrama guides.

  • General / Dateformat. Using consistent YYYY-MMM-DD format
  • Artist / TV Show listing. Removed the listing of the actor's character/role because it is redundant and was rarely added. Although someone, who must have read the guide, started to this info recently. Maybe this should be made optional.
  • Artist / Recognitions section. Got heavily changed because on the web you find only information about won awards. Appearances or nominations don't seem to be noteworthy enough for Koreans.
  • KDrama / Air time format. Commented out the paragraph about the 24h-format, because 8:00 for korean morning dramas without AM could be confusing for readers who don't know about the time format. Also it seems that the AM/PM format is more common in Korea... well at least on the official drama websites. Happy Wiki'ing! --MoerkJ talk 12:21, 14 Aug 2008 (CEST)
That's great! Thanks for the update. FYI, I only wrote the Japanese version. The editors who work on the Korean articles copied the Japanese version, and then made changes pertaining to Korean. Groink 21:57, 14 Aug 2008 (CEST)


Please do not use the existing articles as examples when developing your template. You had in your template "Birthday:" and that is totally incorrect. The official profile format is covered in this article: DramaWiki:Korean_Artist_Article_Formatting

My mistake... I did update my template to reflect the new formatting and accidently deleted the "Birthdate:" line and then retyped it incorrectly. Anyhow... thanks for the updated date format... Now I can remove June and ???? from my memory.

Artist / TV Show listing. Removed the listing of the actor's character/role because it is redundant and was rarely added. Although someone, who must have read the guide, started to this info recently. Maybe this should be made optional.

Guilty ... I will remove these actors' character/role as I edit pages.

Hello! We use "Birthdate" instead of "Date of Birth." How about death details? I see articles using either "Date of Death" or simply "Death." Which one would we retain? Or is there any other term we should use? I would just like to clarify before I continue editing. Thanks! --MochaValencia 16:12, 30 Aug 2008 (CEST)

I've been using "Death:" Groink 22:46, 30 Aug 2008 (CEST)
Got it. Thanks! --MochaValencia 18:02, 31 Aug 2008 (CEST)

Profile format[edit]

Is there a perferred way to name - Empas Profile / EMPAS Profile / Profile (empas)? Thanks Imian 17:51, 31 Aug 2008 (CEST)

Probably the last one is the best - Profile (empas) Groink 22:35, 31 Aug 2008 (CEST)

HK Dramas' Air Dates[edit]

I have a small concern about HK dramas (specifically TVB series). For example, Greed Mask's production year is 2003, the overseas launch was also 2003, but I believe the date aired in HK was years later in 2006. So would we use the 2006 date in the details section? I was also wondering if there can be a new option for HK dramas to add "Production period" or the like in the details section as well? Because with TVB series, some dramas may be warehoused and aired a few years after the production date. Or would you rather we just stick to putting the production period in the Notes/Trivia section on the respective drama's page? Also, I was wondering if we should change the overseas dates to the HK dates or keep it like that (The Slicing of the Demon)? Sorry for the bother & thank you~ --Ladys07 12:37, 14 Nov 2008 (EST)

I would use the air date as 2006, and in the trivia section write a note that the show was produced in 2003. Groink 07:37, 14 Nov 2008 (CET)

TV Movies[edit]

Why are theatrical movies okay to list on DramaWiki, but not TV ones? That doesn't make much sense to me. --Lady Zhuge 15:16, 21 Dec 2008 (CET)

If they were TV movies, they should've been listed under TV shows. A TV movie is basically a one-shot TV drama, much like what us Japanese fans call a "tanpatsu." I'm not a Chinese/Hong Kong fan by any means, so categorization is even more vital here. Groink 23:14, 21 Dec 2008 (CET)
If that's the case, then why did you remove them altogether from Zoe Tay's article instead of just moving them to the TV section? In China and I believe Singapore as well, a TV movie is not the same as a TV drama or series and thus there is differentiation. Even the terminology is different (电视剧 [TV drama] or 电视连续剧 [TV series] vs. 电视电影 [TV movie]). Therefore, I've been listing all TV movies under "Movies." Until there's an official okay in the guidelines to make 电视电影 articles, that's what I'll continue to do. --Lady Zhuge 01:36, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
Because, I repeat, I am not familiar with Chinese or Hong Kong dramas. As an outsider, I go by the categories with western thinking in mind. As for DramaWiki's definition of a TV movie, keep in mind that the definition fits the westerners and other native English speakers - as ALL aspects of DramaWiki is for that demographic. Even though the country of origin considers a "TV movie" and a "motion picture in a movie theater" the same thing, to us westerners and English speakers they are NOT one in the same. That's something you editors must consider when deciding how others interpret what you put up here. If, for example, someone on D-Addicts uploads a Chinese TV movie, a moderator is going to delete that movie because, as you've said you've been doing, it is listed as a "movie" on DramaWiki. Movies are not allowed on D-Addicts, but we don't go as far as taking each country of origin's definition of what a movie is. See where I'm getting at here? Groink 02:25, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
Then perhaps you shouldn't have just taken it upon yourself to remove them without discussion first. I did not say that a "TV movie" and a "motion picture in a movie theater" are the same thing by anyone's definition. If by chance you've happened upon some of the China articles, the TV movies that are listed under "Movies" are differentiated with a "TV movie" notation in parentheses. They were also differentiated from theatrical films in the Zoe Tay article by a separate sub-section (Telemovies). --Lady Zhuge 02:40, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
It isn't my fault that you Chinese editors deviated from DramaWiki's and D-Addicts' guidelines. My edits follow the guidelines of these two bodies. Where in the Chinese artist article guidelines (BTW, it is virtually a copy of the Japanese artist guidelines, which I personally wrote in 2006) does it say you can create a "telemovie" sub-section? Where in the the guidelines does it say that TV movies are placed in the movies section? Groink 02:49, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
Maybe people who don't have any clue about Chinese dramas shouldn't be writing and editing the guidelines on Chinese articles in the first place. TV movies are still movies. Nowhere does it say that the "Movies" section is restricted to films in a movie theater. --Lady Zhuge 03:10, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
That's where you're wrong. D-Addicts define movies as movie theater shows, and TV movies as TV shows. DramaWiki is spawned from D-Addicts. Again, I did not write the Chinese guidelines; someone just copied my Japanese guidelines and use it for the Chinese articles, which basically it is acceptable because, once again, westerners believe that movies are found in a movie theater. I repeat, DramaWiki is for westerners and native English speakers! Your definitions are Eastern Asian, and do not apply here. Groink 03:20, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Reading through your talk page, I think I know where the confusion is. In one of the topics of your talk page, it was brought up that the Koreans see a "TV show" and "TV series" differently. In short, the reason why DramaWiki stuck with the "TV show" nomenclature as the section name of choice is that it doesn't force the editor to think about whether the show is only one episode or multiple episodes. One of your comments was that if ALL the TV shows have multiple episodes, then the section name should be "TV series". To me, that is totally ridiculous because it further complicates the whole process of the section. Among the Japanese editors, we treat ALL TV shows as TV shows, and we could care less if it only one episode or multiple episodes. This simplifies the process.

The reason I bring this up is because I think you're thinking way too much about a given TV show. The best thing do is just to simplify the process! Simply put, ANYTHING that appears originally on broadcast TV - it is a TV show. Anything that appears on the big screen in a movie theater - it is a movie. Simple! Trying to force us editors to think about 1) did it air on TV? 2) did it have multiple episodes? 3)xxxxxxxx - it is asking for too much! The guidelines I wrote two years ago is simple! As we move forward here, I will continue to change "TV series" to "TV shows" in the Korean articles, and I will continue to enforce the concept that a "telemovie" is just simply a one-episode TV show.

If after all of this you still disagree, you should put this issue up for discussion in the Chinese Artist Article Guideline talk page. Groink 03:20, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

You're bringing up a different issue here. If the admins want all the headings to read "TV Shows", they can change them with one SQL command without you going through every article and doing it manually. "ANYTHING" is a dangerous word. "ANYTHING that appears originally on broadcast TV" can include a whole lot more than just TV dramas. And again if you really believed that a telemovie is just a one-episode TV show, you would have moved it to the appropriate section instead of deleting it altogether. I don't care if you're "not familiar" with the topic or whatnot. You felt as though you knew enough to feel compelled to edit it. And yes, I still disagree with your "simplify" process for ALL articles because they don't always apply appropriately to Chinese dramas since some of them go straight to DVD and may or may not ever get broadcast. But whatever. Go ahead and change what you'd like to whatever articles you'd like since you wrote and can edit the guidelines to your liking. This is apparently your website, or at least one that's heavily influenced by you, and one that I no longer want any part of. --Lady Zhuge 04:06, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Unbelievable. I suggested bringing this discussion to the talk page of the guidelines article, and instead you decide to dump this wiki? Maybe it's for the best... For everyone else who's reading this, DramaWiki:Style guide#Formatting philosophy states that "every article must have the same look." If we go around and let the Korean editors do their own formatting, the Chinese editors do their own formatting, the Hong Kong editors do their own formatting.... then DramaWiki will lose its consistency. All successful web sites are consistent concerning the flow of their articles. We just happen to use a wiki engine vs style sheets and hard-coded templates. Consistency makes for easier reading, and to give the entire site the look that simply put, "We have our act together! We communicate with one another!" If every one of you were to read the style guide, you will come to believe that when every article is identical in formatting, our readers will appreciate the idea that we consider them priority one. I've been told by several people off-line our articles show that our editors work together - unlike some other wikis. The concept of consistency is the entire foundation of everything we do here! If we took Lady Zhuge's ideas and started sub-categorizing, re-formatting and re-defining terms in order to fit each culture, then we're moving away from our consistency goal. Groink 04:41, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Yes, it is for the best, Mr. Dictator. But don't preach about losing consistency and identical formatting when this Wiki never had that. Hong Kong articles have the "Cantonese/Mandarin title" subheading, but which other ones do? The Chinese/Taiwanese/HK/Singapore articles use "Also known as" in their artist profiles, but the Korean and Japanese articles use "Nickname." Some articles use "Awards" and some use "Recognitions." All of that's tailored to the countries of origin. --Lady Zhuge 05:02, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
Now you're getting nick-picky here. It is impossible to keep even 50-percent of the articles consistent. But no one can ever tell us we don't try. As of right now, there are over 9000 articles. For just a handful of us editors to police every single article - that'll take years. Right now, we have at least a dozen new articles created each day, as well as over 100 edits each day. Most of us active editors will make these changes (Awards -> Recognition, etc.) when we run into them. But, I personally only read the Japanese articles, but do read others when I see an editor make too many edits to one article in a short time period. This is usually a red flag where the editor is doing something out of the ordinary. In your situation, what you're trying to pull is re-defining terms, and introducing entirely new terms and sub-sections. THAT'S what I have a problem with here.

On a closing note, if you look above my desk, you will see my Ph.Ds in dictatorships, message board bullying, and the like. I take pride in these because for every person who calls me one of these names, it basically tells me that I'm doing my job of maintaining order. In my entire professional life, I'm often hunted down by job head hunters because I have a reputation of getting shit done. My methods may be bad to some people, but who cares. This is something the Internet needs way more of - the dictators and the bullies because if it weren't for us, there would be total chaos and anarchy throughout the network. And no one would be able to maintain order and conduct any sort of business in an efficient and militarily manner. It'll be like "Escape from New York". Is that what people on the Internet want? As General McArthur once said, "You want me on that line. You NEED me on that line." Groink 05:22, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

So you and Hitler have something in common. I hope you can add that comparison to your self-glorification as well. But in response to the bolded, the differences I pointed out are in the EXISTING GUIDELINES themselves. I wasn't trying to redefine anything, just following how I interpreted the Movies heading to be. Your way of defining "Movies" isn't the only one. And BTW, I can't take credit for creating the "Telemovies" subheading. --Lady Zhuge 05:38, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)
Puh, what a nasty discussion... Please calm down both. You shouldn't get so busy over such little things. Let me add three things. First, commercial movies are categorized by the medium on which they were released first. Movies are released first either in movie theatres (cinemas), straight to video (STV), or on TV. We list the first two under Movies and the TV released movies under TV Shows. Second, deleting the TV movies on the Zoe Tay article without discussing first it was obviously a mistake. The movies could have been moved to the TV Shows section, instead. Maybe it wasn't obvious how to handle his, because there are not many TV movies listed on DramaWiki. Third and last, the guidelines are just a help for (new) editors how to create new pages. But the guidelines should be treated as what they are: guidelines, not strict rules. If we want a thight layout for every page then we would have used templates. It shouldn't really matter if a section is called "TV Series" or "TV Shows", "Recognitions" or "Awards". If you really want uniform section names then I could do that for you with a few SQL commands for all pages within a few seconds. I always believed that collecting the information comes first, then the layout. Most of the cosmetical changes (trivial edits) can be applied later either anonymously by simple text relacements "inside the database" or as programmed edits through bot scripts. --MoerkJ talk 07:36, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Seriously, I really thought a "telemovie" was a cell phone movie. I'm not kidding here. That is why I deleted those entries. See what I mean? Not all of us know what a "telemovie" is. That's a term not many of us westerners have in our vocabulary. Groink 07:49, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Also, because Lady just rattled off a reference to Hitler, I must now invoke Godwin's Law, and put an end to this discussion. Further discussion added to this talk page regarding this matter will be deleted. Groink 07:52, 22 Dec 2008 (CET)

Question about a name[edit]

Hi Groink, I really hope i'm doing this in the right place, if not sorry about it. But I was just wondering if I could get your input before I make a page for the jactress Oomasa Aya 大政絢. On her talent agency profile and on jdorama it says her name is spelt "Oomasa Aya" but her blog says "Omasa Aya." (Also on dramawiki both is used) In hiragana her name is おおまさあや so it would be an extended Oo so should I use Oomasa? I think on dramawiki even if it's an extended we use the short version? Which would be the correct one to use? Thanks in advance. -- IwaseJEN

I would first use what her official profile uses, in this case it is Oomasa Aya. Create a redirect for Omasa Aya and have it point to Oomasa Aya. And then, in the article, you can add something like "Name (romaji): Oomasa Aya / Omasa Aya". Thanks for asking! Groink 20:07, 26 Dec 2008 (CET)

Zhao or Chao?[edit]

I'm not sure if you are watching the discussion page for Mark Chao/Zhao, but I just wanted to let you know that I have posted up my reply about the Zhao/Chao issue. Zahra 10:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I think it is a matter of settling on some romanization standards on the Chinese article end. In case you haven't already read through them, the Romanization of Chinese article should be the standard, so please read the article and see if this issue can be settled using the guidelines in the article. Groink 10:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Going by this: "It is best to include the Hanyu Pinyin romanization in any article as it will usually be the romanization technique used when the official romanization or its English language title is unclear." and "Taiwan has 2 romanization standards in use today. Tongyong Pinyin, the official romanization standard adopted by the National Government of the Republic of China(Taiwan) in 2000 and Wade-Giles, which is the de-facto standard. Unfortunately, usage of both romanizations by the Taiwanese have been rather limited and many Taiwanese themselves do not know either system. Apart from artiste and place names, though even an artiste's romanized name may be hard to find, it is rare that either romanization will be used to romanize drama names."
It's not explicit, but I still believe that it should be changed to Zhao if only for the sake of consistency. Zahra 10:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I really know absolutely nothing about things Chinese. I eat the food, and I like Bruce Lee. That's about it. But I do know a lot about DramaWiki. We basically run things differently here from other places like IMDB and even Wikipedia. And, our rules seem to be somewhat strange to newcomers. Our number-one goal is to serve the English-speaking visitor, and not the scholars and native speakers. Many of these English speaking people are like me - they don't know the difference between Zhao and Chao. And, it really should not matter to us, which is why we need everything Chinese subbed and romanized for us. I really can't be of further help. I do trust WaterOB because he's been around DramaWiki for quite some time, and he's done really good and accurate work here. But, if you think that our guidelines need changing regarding romanization, I would prefer you work with WaterOB since you seem to know a lot as well. Groink 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hontou ni Atta Kowai Hanashi Edit Advice[edit]

Hi Groink. I was just wondering if I could get your input/advice for editing the Hontou ni Atta Kowai Hanashi page. I've been meaning to edit it for a long time but I couldn't figure out which format would be best. First of all, this show airs about once every year and its fronted by Inagaki Goro as the main host. Basically within each show they show a few mini dramas of horror story. In each of the mini drama (about 3-5 usually per show) they have different actors and directors etc. So I was wondering if it would be better if I wrote the title in general for the aired show, such as Summer Special 2007, then under it put the airdate. then indent and put the title of the mini drama then indent again and list the cast/staff?

or should i just collectively list all the cast under summer special 2007 then next to their names have in italics the title of the mini drama they were in? and same for the staff?

or is it better to use charts. so have a chart with 3 columns for each year they air a show, like one chart for the summer special 2007, one for 2008 etc: title, cast, staff? Sorry if this seems confusing. Let me know if I can clarify anything XD. And thank you. =)

The format sounds very familiar to Yonimo Kimyona Monogatari. The difference is that YKM is quarterly, while your show is annually, but you could probably apply the same idea to Hontou. Groink 09:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much Groink ^^b


Hey Groink! I was wondering what facts are considered trivia.. the reason why I'm asking is someone recently made changes to a TV drama article (Shining Inheritance) about this network buying the rights to air it in their country. Is that trivia? I mean should that be included in the article? cuz many dramas air in other countries and usually they aren't noted on the article... --C51236 27 Aug 2009

I'd leave that out. The articles should only focus on the drama's country of origin. Eastern Asian dramas are mega-popular in the Philippines and Vietnam, and we don't want these articles to be flooded with this information - as one editor tried to do awhile back. I could even flood the Japanese and Korean articles with Hawaii information, but I'd rather not. Groink 06:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Matsuoka Masahiro[edit]

Hi Groink. I was just wondering how I should link a particular info to the actor Matsuoka Masahiro's page. He directed one story for the drama 0 Goshitsu no Kyaku, but that was probably a special one-time thing, so I was wondering how I should credit him on his page. Should I put it under the trivia section that he directed this one story or should I create a new "tv shows as a director" section? IwaseJEN

Sources of quotations on oshin page[edit]

Hi Groink. looking at the history of the oshin page, i saw that all contributions were made by you. I'm actually interested in the impact of oshin in the arabic world. Where did you get those informations from? I would like to use the sources for more research about this topic. Thanks--コッチを目標に 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)