Merge discussion.

Ji-Young, while somewhat memorable, is not one of the major characters in Squid Game like Kang Sae-byeok and seems to fall short of the criteria for WP:NCHARACTER and WP:NFILMCHAR in terms of cultural impact in the same way that Thanos and Cho Hyun-ju are notable. I would argue that some other characters are more impactful like Sang-woo, Ali Abdul, and Jang Deok-su, who are all main characters. WuTang94 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely confused what you are citing from WP:NCHARACTER or WP:NFILMCHAR. Aside from the former not being a guideline, policy, or even listed essay, the only thing it discusses are discussion of using top lists (not relevant) and being discussed in an out-of-universe way (Ji-yeong is discussed in this way in numerous reliable sources). In fact, your reasoning seems to run contrary to WP:NCHARACTER, as the only point you seem to make is that other characters are more important, and you're offering in-universe explanations as to why. The importance of Squid Game characters is based on reliable secondary sources, and numerous have indicated that she is important. Moving onto WP:NFILMCHAR, this primarily is discussing adaptations of characters from non-films, and otherwise simply says to follow WP:GNG and WP:NFICT, so you should explain how it fails these for out-of-universe reasons. I strongly oppose a merge based on the fact that the nomination does not make a valid merge argument and the reception is chock full of articles about Ji-yeong and articles that discuss Ji-yeong to a significant degree. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analysis of Reception sources:

  1. [1] - Article about Ji-yeong that discusses her to a significant degree.
  2. [2] - Article about Lee's Emmy win for portraying Ji-yeong
  3. [3] - Article that discusses the impact of Ji-yeong on Lee's popularity.
  4. [4] - Article that discusses Ji-yeong to a significant degree
  5. [5] - Article discussing the friendship betwen Ji-yeong and Sae-byeok
  6. [6] - Article from a researcher that goes into significant depth into her character, particularly her status as a victim of child abuse.
  7. [7] - From a collection of articles, this author analyzes how Ji-yeong's character differs from all other members of the cast and how her relationship with Sae-byeok helped heal her

In addition, numerous articles about the episode "Gganbu" discussed to a significant degree why Ji-yeong's character and Lee's performance were highlights of the show. Your belief that not being a main character makes her not notable is not an argument that uses any guideline or policy to justify it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WuTang94: Can you respond to my points please? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been busy the last couple of weeks with work. I mean, if there's enough social commentary as you mentioned, then I'd be okay with it. Just gotta be careful to differentiate if it's the actress getting the coverage instead of the character. One instance I've been bitten on in the past was with Ray Fisher having a notable feud with Warner Bros., Joss Whedon, and Walter Hamada over his treatment while playing Cyborg (a major character rather than supporting!) in the DC Extended Universe, but that was not enough to keep the Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe) page. Those sources instead went into the Production of Justice League (film) page. Granted, adaptations of comic book characters may have different guidelines than original characters like Ji-Young here, which may play to your advantage. But let's see what other editors say. WuTang94 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unsure what parts of the guidelines you were citing in your original comment Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Namely the "Extensive sources" clause of WP:NFILMCHAR, which is a subset of another Wikipedia guideline. But at the time I may have been unaware of the sources you listed.
I probably would have put more on the actress's Emmy win and the social commentary on the character in the intro paragraph for your page. That way readers (and reviewers) would more quickly understand the notability of the page's subject. Just a tip. WuTang94 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it may have been worthwhile to feature more of the specific reception in the lead, I feel like it's important to review the Reception section and not just the lead when opening a merge discussion. At this point, I am unsure what, if anything, your current objection to the article may be. Could you elaborate it? Given that the only respondents have been opposed, I think it may be worthwhile to consider closing the discussion. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it looks like you've proven your point. I just wanted to open up a discussion, so no need to take my comments or concerns personally. However, I've found that most readers on Wikipedia only skim the first few paragraphs (including myself in this regard), so if the reception part is important, there should be a sentence in the intro paragraph briefly referring or alluding to it. Granted, if nothing else comes out of this discussion I can withdraw it after a few more days. WuTang94 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge per Cukie Gherkin's comment. Appears to be enough separate significant coverage seefooddiet (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that there was not a merge from template placed on the list's page, so I elected to add it. It's since been a week approximately since this discussion was open, but I will wait a few more days so more people can participate before requesting a closure of the discussion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ji-yeong_(Squid_Game)
No tags for this post.