Talk:Burning Sun scandal
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burning Sun scandal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Roy Kim's involvementEdit
Today it was revealed that Roy Kim was also involved in the Seungri/Jung Joonyoung chat rooms by the Korean Huffington Post.
https://www.huffingtonpost.kr/entry/roy-kim_kr_5ca32670e4b03e061e39b88d?g4i --188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Propose to split article in sections as page is 111kbytes in size which is far too big. Furthermore, more information will be added in time to come as investigations are still ongoing. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest to split the development/timeline section out into its own page. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's too soon to split, the Section "Criminal cases, allegations, bookings and arrests" is recommended to be summarized and trimmed when more of the arrests are made; and the Introduction can be trimmed and summarized more, with final details. Taking out the Section "Development" leaves very little to the page. And, I don't think it would fit well into a timeline, the narrative style is better, as many of the points are tied together by multiple dates, instead of one. The readable portion is not too large for a subject like this, as a lot of space is being taken up by the Reference section. I suggest we give it some time.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I looked into the details: the article's Page Statistics  show it has 8,761 words, which on the Article size - readability to be more the size of an article that is 50 kB, "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words....." As I said, I believe the lengthy Reference section is making the page look particularly long. (So many citations were necessary as the informaton has been teased out, in bits and pieces, and sometimes with translations varying.) In addition, it has 38 sections, which while helping the reader to easily access sections from the Contents, is also causing the page to look longer than it is. Wikipedia Article Size says "no need for haste" to split...."Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
May I also suggest that the opening (the summary at the top of the page, I forget the correct name) be shortened, or re-written entirely? Holy shit is it ever LONG! 5 paragraphs of info that could be condensed into 2 or 3, and with a much smaller word count. Does it really have to be as long as World War I or am I in the wrong here and does the damn intro really need a long winded 4 page essay? Because you should be able to find stuff like the star's quotes IN their corresponding sections when you're looking through the article. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 12:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the Intro. was lengthy. It was mostly the original creation of the page  as a stub, when the current events were just unfolding, and should have been implemented into the body. So, I have now moved some Intro. information to the body of the article, including the chatroom quote. It still needs further rewriting and synopsis, which is pending the judicial conclusion, arrests and adjudication, which are forthcoming.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now: You can, however, condense a lot of the article to more concise points. The scandal, although big, isn't big enough to warrant several articles yet, wait until it gets big enough like the Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil scandal. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
At this time, in addition to shortening the Intro., the lengthy Section "Criminal cases, allegations, bookings and arrests" has been summarized and renamed as "Investigation summary" (still needs removal of some redundant citations), and sub-headings for the last two sections were removed. All have made the page a little more concise and tidy. As this scandal is still current, more changes and summaries are anticipated.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Since it's clear there's no consensus to split at this time, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Which does not mean the discussion needs to be concluded. El_C 02:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)