Jump to content

Talk:Blackpink/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Notability?

This band has no releases and the coverage presented is from Kpop news sites that have just repeated what they were told by the label in a tabloid style. We may want to redirect to YG Entertainment#Recording artists until there is better sourcing and the band have actually released material, otherwise this is just marketing. Fences&Windows 05:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I agree. These kinds of articles are often redirected until the group has actually released music and there is more evidence of notability. Random86 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Square One (BLACKPINK Album)

Only released today, this is almost certainly not notable enough for its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I redirected. The article was deceptive, it is a single not an album. No evidence of charting, no significant coverage (most sources were Twitter), all content already here. Fences&Windows 09:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you even search? http://www.allkpop.com/article/2016/08/black-pinks-square-one-impresses-by-topping-the-worldwide-itunes-album-chart Anyway even ifi t isnt a full fledged album its still charting number 1 and its singles are aswell.Not to mention theres been a ton of coverage for the release.Junkoo (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Allkpop is not a reliable source and charting on iTunes can't be mentioned in the article. Please see WP:KO/RS and WP:CHART. The single might be notable but the article was not reflecting that. Random86 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

http://music.naver.com/listen/top100.nhn?domain=DOMESTIC www.melon.com/chart/index.htm A few more charts.Also allkpop is reliable when it comes to stuff like this just because a site is capable of delivering gossip does not make its other section written by other people unreliable not to mention that the gossip is also reliable but i digress.So yes AKP is reliable samo goes for seoulbeats and koreaboo cant comment on others since i dont use them daily.If its charting number one its notable simple as that. Junkoo (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Junkoo you really need to research what reliable source means — check out this link. Allkpop, Soompi, Koreaboo and especially a random blog like Seoulbeats are not considered as reliable sources on Wikipedia. For charting ONLY Gaon is reliable (for Korean Charts) and the single was released like yesterday so no there is no reliable sources yet. Naver, Melon, Bugs etc. are streaming sites. Melon is the most relevant streaming site in Korea with like 90% but streaming sites are irrelevant here. The Gaon Chart position is the only one which is relevant and should be used. Also check out the links of Random86.--2A02:8108:1440:2870:41AE:BF3A:5FD:2FA9 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Im sorry i fail to see the reason behind the logic of if it has a gossip section its news reporting becomes automaticly unreliable.Also i think the chart thing is outdated because Korea has literaly special SKus of flagship phones for streaming tv streaming music is very much relavent if not more so than digital or at the very least physical sales.Also the Wikipedia article regarding charts says recomended for use not exclusively for use its a technicality sure but so is everything on that page.Junkoo (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Like the IP said, Gaon chart is the only Korean chart that should be included in articles. The weekly Gaon Digital Chart includes downloads and streaming from the major Korean sites such as Melon. If you disagree with that, start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Record charts; don't edit war against previous consensus. Random86 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
If all other charts show number one what do you think the average score that Gaon will creat will be?im not very good with math but i think it will be 1.Junkoo (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It would have to be number one for the whole week. We will find out on August 18. Random86 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why 18th?Wasnt Gaon a weekly chart?Junkoo (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Pink's songs were released this week, which isn't over yet. Charts are released the following Thursday, which in this case is the 18th. Random86 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thats it

This is getting out of hand the scope of this project is to inform the reader about the predebut activities as well as post debut regarding BLACKPINK and turning the article that is properly sourced and within the scope of the project into a stub with bearly any information is near vandalism if not already.Reverting the edit if you have a problem with that please comment here because the last time i tried no one bothered.Junkoo (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any reasons to keep the excessive, non-encyclopedic details that Drmies removed. A promotional campaign does not warrant coverage in an encyclopedia. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Its properly sourced and contains information about members and release dates.Its part of the articles scope as stated in my orignial comment it does not have a promotional tone so may you provide any reason as to why it should be removed?Unlike the previous user who only had "blah" to sayJunkoo (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because something is verifiable and/or neutrally written, doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic. As Drmies already said, this is excessive and unencyclopedic detail; Wikia is a better outlet for this kind of material. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you JJMC89. Junkoo, I see you got yourself blocked for continuing to edit war; I suppose I should have warned you that you were headed that way but I figured that this would be obvious. At any rate, I did give my reasons, and they are not outrageous or outlandish. It is a simple truth that not every detail is worth mentioning--like this one, for instance. How these members were introduced, one by one, and in which format and which hair color and which media, that's important for YG and the fans, but for a broad readership it means nothing, it just clutters up the article with needless verbiage so that you can't see the forest for the trees. That's not good writing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
DriemsThe only thing you should have done is actualy respond when discussing the matter of your outlandish and outrageous edits.And no blah is not a proper response.The information is well within scope and has no promotional value so deal with it.What is not encyclopedic is being spotted eating with a man (wonder if you can even get the reference).Broad readirship is broad and you have no way of assuming what information they may or may not require.Also good writing≠amount written so thats irrelevant.Junkoo (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I need to be told by you what I should have done. Sorry, but people with a hundred or so edits should listen, not talk incessantly. And if you think that good writing is unnecessary, you don't know what an encyclopedia is. (If that is not what you were saying, please consider writing grammatically correct English and using a spellchecker.) After almost two hundred thousand edits here and twenty years of teaching writing, yeah, I think I know a little bit about readership. Please improve the Wikia article. Drmies (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I listened and i disagreed and told you why dont act like i didnt.Well your reading comprehension isnt as good as one might expect from a person teaching 20 years of writing i guees.So if you cant disprove my points i dont care.You are free to add information but rewriting an article(thats a nice way of saying destroying it) should be discussed prior to the edit if you have any consideration for people or the topic that is.You are basing your judgement on the person not the point he brings up.Dont turn the conversation about the person and trying to discretit him keep it about the points he raises up if you cannot seperate those two i suggest either not interfering with the discussion or trying to fix underlying the issue which prevents you from doing so.Junkoo (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I listened and i disagreed and told you why dont act like i didnt. Criticising other editors' reading comprehension is rather ironic given that your punctuation, grammar and syntax are really bad. You don't make it easy for people discussing with you to understand what you are saying - and that's assuming, after many tries, they eventually get lucky and finally understand what you wrote. Coupled with that is your propensity of throwing-in personal comments written in similarly challenged grammar and spelling: Well your reading comprehension isnt as good as one might expect from a person teaching 20 years of writing i guees. and i suggest either not interfering with the discussion or trying to fix underlying the issue which prevents you from doing so. Another ominous sign is that multiple editors keep telling you that you need to alter your current behaviour because it is disruptive, yet you persist in defending it. All in all you either need to stop this or get a mentor to advise you on how to carry on going forward. Alternatively, you could take Drmies' advice and move to Wikia. In any case, I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness and you should try to disengage. Dr. K. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Words are used to convey a point nothing more nothing less how i spell them does not matter.Im not reverting the vandalism they did because all they can do is try to shut me up instead of adressing the points i bring up something you arent doing either so why even engage in the conversation if you have ntohing to add?Anyway i provedid them my argument they have yet to refute it if they are capable of doing so they would have already tried to refute it i guess my points are right if their confirmation is anything to go by.Junkoo (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No, my friend. A number of people have explained to you why your edits are problematic. It is you who have to address those concerns. And you have to stick to the rules and provide reliable sources and keep the article neutral in style and tone.
But the only thing you do, is shouting and roaring and blame everybody else than yourself. Please, adhere to the rules. The Banner talk 18:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Until any number of those people show me the proof behind their argument i dont care my edits are not disruptive in fact its been the only useful edit to the article in a day.All im asking and all these people are failing to do is show me the proof that my points are invalid like i did theirs if they do and i cant disporve them as per freaking common sense i will agree with them but they have not.Again attacking the editor and not his points wont get you anywhere in a proper discussion dont take my word for it its on wikipedias policies.Junkoo (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you plain refuse to adhere to the rules? The Banner talk 18:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I am adhereing to the rules and theres nothing to suggest otherwise just like my points that have been ignored and not adressed.Again stop trying to make it about a person and be productive and state the reason my points are invalid if uncapapble to do so state that and be over with.No amount of stalling the conversation like this will prove your pointJunkoo (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, stop with this rant. Shouting and roaring will not help you and does not make your "arguments" more valid. And please, read WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Theres no higher point then valid ofcourse.Also im not shouting nor roaring im writing and with lowercaps dont where you heard shouting or roaring.Also nothing in that project invalidates my valid point.Also i didnt type your name but he did mine a response is obviously incoming in that case.Also update the article if you are lurking around so much i had to update it.And with all due respect )however much there is left) all you have done is try and get this page deleted and suporting the removal of most of the article for 0 reasons just shows your agenda.See i can make claims too except there is a deletion discussion to prove it.Junkoo (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Junkoo (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Not every source is a reliable source. A website as www.yg-life.com is clearly related and should not be used. A reliable encyclopaedia is based on reliable sources (no social media, Facebook, YouTubes and the likes), independent (not in anyway related to the subject), prior published sources. Note: English language sources are preferred not mandatory. The Banner talk 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Look YG lifes citations are regarding facts like the fact a teaser was released or that a performence happened in those situations its pointless to use anything else.As for AKP and Soompi they get their news right and translate it from korean sources which is why i use them since its prefered.The Akp comment as to why its not reliable states the opposite and Soompi isnt given an explanation when it clearly puts its sources on the bottom of each article.So those two are reliable and arguing it is a waste of time.Does that clear things up?Junkoo (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I give you advice to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and you bluntly ignore it. Why? The Banner talk 20:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Im telling all the advice(i presume your comment above) is adhered to and i gave you the reason as to why.If you want to question it ok lest go.Did the teasers of each member get released?Yes did YG life show otherwise?NO Did the performence of Whstle and Boombayah happen?Yes Did YGlife say otherwise?NO.Is it statedo n the RS that AKP is reliable?According to it yes."A celebrity gossip site based which publishes rumors and conjecture in ``` addition to accurately reported facts.```."Does Soompi source their articles?Yes does RS say otherwise?"An English-language website K-pop site." nope.What exactly am i not adhereing to here?Junkoo (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That you are still not using reliable sources but relates sources as www.yg-life.com and sources deemed unreliable as Soompi.
But you are free to ignore the advice I gave you about reliable sources. You are also free to ignore any advice of an article needing to be neutral in style and tone. But that will have consequences as Wikipedia is not a free-for-all or an advertising medium. The Banner talk 20:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Your advice is nice and all but im adhereing to it.You didnt disagree to any of my points with anything to oppose them so i presume you agree that they adhere so thank you for the confirmation.And The Banner talk repeating baseless claims like COI or an article being promotional with 0 proof doesnt help your case.Junkoo (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, you are ignoring it. That is fine but do not start screaming when you get blocked. have a nice day/evening/night/morning/afternoon (circle what is applicable). The Banner talk 21:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You are ignoring the facts i presented which is fine but dont cry to me or anyone and claim factless stuf and then try and justify it.NightJunkoo (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You are ignoring the advise of several long established editors that are trying to keep the encyclopaedia focused as consensus has said it should be focused. Constantly accusing those editors of bias when they point out promotional material is promotional does not help improve the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is built on co-operative editing, and your attitude seems to be confrontational. Long term this is likely just to get you blocked from editing but it would be better if you could learn to actually note the points being made and not just dismiss them out of hand all the time. noq (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I dont care how established one may be when he is wrong he is wrong.He pointed out what he thought was problematic and i quickly and swiftly refuted it to which he has not replied and given Wikipedias policy that means he agrees.He never pointed out why he thinks its promotional what value comes from it or why other pages featre just as much if not more pre-debut information .My attitude is reflective of the person i am talking to you may not like that but then you shouldnt like his either and its not about liking my attitude anyway its about the points i bring up if you take things personaly cill out i guess.And i still see people comenting on me rather than my points which havent been adressed.So if you agree with my points do like him and stop if you dont feel free to continue to contest them.Junkoo (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
And there is the problem again - anyone who does not agree with you is branded as wrong. You seem blinded by defending a position rather the collaborating with other editors. Anyone who disagrees is dismissed out of hand. Your assumption that someone not replying to you immediately is agreement with you is simply wrong. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that you cannot just refer to an example of an article that shows something that is being argued about and say that proves your point. Your insistence that there is no higher point than valid is meaningless - what is valid? Wikipedia requires WP:reliable sources to WP:verify - not just any source and sometimes you can get contradictory sources that both appear reliable - In an environment when commercial interests are heavily promoting something, trivia can be blown out of proportion. noq (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No that is obviously not true im not going to argue here that the thank you video is notable(regardless of how cute their accents are) or saying that Bom eating with someone should be mentioned.I proved my point i explained why those sites were reliable and he hasnt said otherwise neither did you.If people want to waste their time swaping links when the original was fine then be my guest waste your time.Valid is the truth.Trivia is not being discussed here were talking about the fact that their pre-debut information got axed for no reason.Junkoo (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Pink → Blackpink – See official website, official Instagram and Facebook Kanghuitari (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No objection here YT MVs also dont have space betweeen Black and Pink.Aslo it should be all caps as is its liek that in all their video mv titles and posters.Junkoo (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Streaming Count

Do we really have to include the actual streaming numbers on paragraphed article? It doesn't really help in simplifying the tone of the article. And given the multiple streaming services like Youtube, Naver and V App, I doubt it would be helpful to put the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phthalocyan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I commend the effort to keep things simple, but in you're effort of keeping things as readable as possible, please be careful of oversimplifying information. Not everything that is described in detail can be categorized as detrimental. I rewrote it in a different way to keep the sentence flowing, and added a specific chart for the streaming numbers so as not to confuse readers. I plan to address you're concerns by adding more streams from the different sites you mentioned in order to provide more insight. Also, thank you for fixing other problems with the article! Kittykat407 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat407 (talk • contribs)

Building a good article

because this article relatively new, let's make this become a good article by refering format from BIGBANG page. Duskmoon2005 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Duskmoon2005 Good thought. I have qualms against BIGBANG's introduction though because its too long. Girls'_Generation page seems to be a better page to refer to.

Genre issue

Hello, there seems to be an ongoing genre issue with this article on my watchlist. K-Pop is an umbrella term for a lot of Korean popular music but that shouldn't fundamentally mean that they should be solely put under that genre. Kindly give some of your opinions here: Phthalocyan (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Phthalocyan I personally think that the group should widen their discography first then decide on their real genre. YG Entertainment specializes in hiphop and electro which seems to be the group's direction.Sleepthroughtheclock (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016


Rosé was born in New Zealand. She said this in their second V app live. It can be seen in the video below: youtube: /SfdIkTtvpDU?t=12m47s She says "New Zealand, I was born there"

Writ2002 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Writ2002, I know you're not going to like this but the rules of what can be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia are written in such a way that it is unlikely the v-app video would be considered. This is because it's a primary source. The best you could do with such a source is to write in something like "Rose has said she was born in New Zealand", but you can't assume it's true and write in "Rose was born in New Zealand" without obtaining a secondary source from a reliable publication. The rules are meant to stop people from adding in questionable statements such as "Charlie Sheen has survived 16 drug overdoses" when this is just something he's said about himself and there is no supporting evidence.Peachywink (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - as explained above - Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

Guuuuuguuuugugug (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to provide the specific content that needs to be modified with your request, along with the reliable sources that support the change. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017

Black Pink's Nov 16, 2016 Weekly Idol appearance is missing (even though they are already a part of the Weekly Idol participants category) Camilleopard (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Guest appearances are not listed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture) Snowflake91 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Pink. 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) 10:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

Hellonameis12345 (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Kim Ji-soo (Korean: 김지수), known as Jisoo, was born in Seoul South Korea on January 3rd 22 years old.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

BlackPink House

Hello everybody,

Okay as info about the subject has been removed more than once (the previous time being on my own edit which was discussed in my talk page) I believe we need to come to a consensus as to why this specific information should be omitted from the main article so we can just decide if we want add this to the article or why it should not be included. Personally I believe that if we have sufficient citations for the information included I do not see a reason it can not be included in the main article considering the amount of time that the group is spending on this particular project and it is significant to the group and therefor has a place in the article. However as it stands reverting it over and over without a discussion does not seem like the best course of action for the quality of the article. Thanks, Perfectirony (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirect Jisoo "Jisoo" is just a Korean given name, so other people also use it.

{{redirect|Jisoo|the given name (and a list of other people with the same name)|Ji-su}}

"Jisoo" redirects here. For the given name (and a list of other people with the same name), see Ji-su.

-- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have instead changed the redirect to Ji-su, as this is a highly ambiguous name with no clear primary topic. ℯxplicit 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

YG Non-korean artists

Is not really true that Lisa is the first non-Korean artist in YG Entertainment, actually was american rapper and producer Perry (born Perry Thomas Borja), besides is not longer on the company. He was born in California and he's of Guamese-Chamorro ancestry.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

"On November 2018" = "In November 2018" 2605:E000:9149:8300:8063:58D6:607C:BD3D (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

"On October 2018" = "In October 2018" 2605:E000:9149:8300:8063:58D6:607C:BD3D (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Stylization?

Please vote about it in the move request started below and not in this section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the article title 'Black Pink'? None of the primary sources about the band go with this way of spelling it. The name supported by most of the sources is clearly 'Blackpink' (stylized as BLACKPINK). As such, I think we should go with simply Blackpink as the article title. Very few sources have actually ever called them "Black Pink". And frankly its a bit WP:OR-y to assume they're named after the two colours instead of just a singular word. Just a simple google search reveals that all of the reliable sources that recently wrote about them go with it being a single word, I find it highly inaccurate that Wikipedia has decided the band's official name 'Blackpink' is a stylization of "Black" and "Pink". Thats simply not true and goes against how reliable sources refer to them.--NØ 18:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. The reason for opposing the move in 2016 doesn't stand up to logical analysis. The above discussion considered BLACKPINK Black Pink and Blackpink as separate names of which the last was (at the time — possibly still now, I'm not sure) the least common. But by the standard of basically any Wikipedia article which is not Big Bang, BLACKPINK and Blackpink would have been considered different stylisations of the same name. In that instance we would've ended up with the unstylised version of the most common name, which would've resulted in Blackpink. If this title really made sense in the general context of Wikipedia naming policies, we wouldn't have inconsistency with album names that contain the group name, and it wouldn't have to be justified on the basis "Big Bang is like that". The fact that BLACKPINK is often (not even always) stylised in all caps, has been used to justify, not only destylising it, but respelling it, with little justification other than "see Big Bang". By the same logic we should move PwC to "Price Waterhouse Coopers", DNCE to "Dance (band)", Radwimps to "Rad Wimps" etc. I can't think of a single other case of non-standard spelling in a proper noun having its spelling "corrected" besides Big Bang. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

"on February 2019" = "in February 2019" 2605:E000:9149:8300:34C3:8045:C670:82A9 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the one-word version Blackpink, along with its stylized variants like BlackPink, are more common than the present version. Cúchullain t/c 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Black Pink → Blackpink – Previous move discussion erroneously considered different stylisations of "Blackpink" as distinct names, which resulted in a splitting effect when considering what is the common name.

In actuality there are only two candidates for the article name, Blackpink and the current title Black Pink.

Part of the justification against a move to Blackpink relied on how Big Bang is named. One other K-Pop group's naming doesn't make a policy, and a move of this article shouldn't need to simultaneously examine or refute if Big Bang is named correctly.

If we are to suppose, as the last move proposal did, that Blackpink and Black Pink are equally common, or at the very least too close to call, there is no policy which would favour using the latter over the former, except trying to "correct" its spelling to English norms.

This title is additionally problematic as it results in consistency issues: album/EP titles have preserved the one-word spelling, while the subject's own article does not. Unless we are to recursively "correct" the spelling: which to me doesn't make sense Blackpink in Your Area is clearly the name of the album and is in the correct place.

But this is assuming that both spellings are indeed equally common, which does not seem to be the case. Official sources (nearly) always use Blackpink (in various stylisations) Official site Official Facebook YouTube etc. And I'm only adding the qualification "nearly" because I can't with certainty guarantee they never use any other spelling, just because I can't find it. Third party sources, such as iTunes/Apple Music, Spotify, Google Play, etc. do the same.

While it's not authoritative, other moves often use Google trends or Google search result counts as at least indicative. "black pink" or Blackpink combined with almost any other disambiguating keyword, such as album, music, group, K-pop, boombayah, forever young etc. all consistently favour the spelling "Blackpink" (the only exception I found was "single" — though I wasn't exhaustive so there may be some others).

In a search for their their appearance at Coachella (which also uses the spelling Blackpink [13]), the top results for blackpink coachella are South China Morning Post, Hollywood Life, Hollywood Reporter and Time. The top results for "black pink" coachella are All K-Pop Asia One and the Jakarta Post (which actually uses the spelling Blackpink within the article). These will vary from region to region, but the overwhelming consensus among media outlets, and online music platforms is for Blackpink. Other examples include the Guardian, the Irish Times, Forbes etc. etc.

Some of the above use camel case or all caps, but these are all just stylisations of Blackpink. Stylisation is not used in Wikipedia article names anyway, so should be considered as a single unit. Estoy Aquí (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong support - The band simply does not go by "Black Pink" on any primary source, period. Their name is "Blackpink", stylized as "BLACKPINK". Its time Wikipedia stopped disseminating wrong information about them, especially something as important and crucial as the band name. This is akin to someone suggesting that Thank U, Next should be renamed to Thank You, Next when the latter is simply not true and has never been used anywhere else.--NØ 08:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We dont use "official" names, but the names that reliable secondary sources are using; there are still MANY sites using "Black Pink" in their recent news (no article is older than six months, most of them are actually from January 2019), see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a two-edged sword and you know it. For every secondary source you dig up that erroneously calls them "Black Pink", there is one using "Blackpink": 1234567891011121314. The thing that clearly makes the distinction here and helps break the ice are primary sources, which all unanimously go with "Blackpink" as one word. Ultimately, Wikipedia is supposed to disseminate the most accurate information, and the truth is that anyone looking for them on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes or any other platform will have to search with "Blackpink" as one word. I don't know why Wikipedia is so adamant on keeping this clear misspelling as the article title--NØ 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No one is denying there are examples — in fact I acknowledged that in comparing the results of the Coachella announcement. The fact that you could find some doesn't prove it's the more common name. Especially since the more prominent secondary sources (examples in my proposal and above) usually use the spelling Blackpink. For verifiability, every one of your examples would probably be equally fine compared to publications like Time, or what they are called on iTunes. But this isn't a question of whether anyone calls them that, it is which is more common, and in that case the prominence of the source clearly does matter. And the Google trends and search results suggest major English language publications prefer Blackpink, as do most users when searching on Google. If we want to cherry-pick the results, course we can find sources that use "Black Pink", however, few if any, major English-language publications use this spelling. One of your examples, infosurhoy.com seems to be written entirely by one contributor, wowkeren.com is in Indonesian, the Jakarta Post is inconsistent, at best[14]. Similarly, you've used Metro.co.uk as a source to oppose, when it appears they also stopped using the spelling Black Pink in the middle of last year. Compare a search on Metro for black pink to blackpink. A search on Metro.co.uk for just black pink (no quotes) returns a first page of results, where every single article uses the spelling Blackpink. For some reason I don't understand, K-Pop, and Korean-focused English language sites and publications do indeed prefer the spelling Black Pink: just because they write about the topics more often, or (more likely) are more likely to be read by contributors to this article, doesn't make them the one true authoritative source for how to name the article. - Estoy Aquí 13:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another note: AsiaOne (used in your examples for "Black Pink") is also inconsistent. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no "standard English convention" for how to spell a proper noun, as opposed to how to style it. No one is proposing to move this article to BLACKPINK. Your comparison to SHINee and iKON is unintentionally, I'll assume, conflating the two. Shinee is at it is the official name with stylisation removed: the spelling is the same as official and most third-party sources -- it's not at "Shiny", just like iKON isn't at "Icon". "Black Pink" is not only removing the stylisation, it is "correcting" the spelling, based on the fact that K-Pop fans who contribute to Wikipedia like this name, and that there are some number of sources which use that. WP:MOSTM explicitly says:
Do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources – the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic.
By the same logic of "ignor[ing] standard English conventions", we should move Mastercard to Master Card, and its introduction should read:
Master Card Incorporated (stylized as MasterCard from 1979 to 2016 and mastercard from 2016 to 2019) is an American multinational financial services corporation ...
And if I was determined to find sources that use that spelling, I can [15][16][17] (some of which are internally inconsistent). Again, I never claimed no one uses the name "Black Pink". My claim is it is less common, in English-language media. It is less common in Google searches. It isn't used by online media platforms. A few links from sites with variable consistency in spelling, prominence and reputability does not refute this. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support — It is the group name or brand not a standardized word or phrase. Just like YouTube not You Tube and many other names or brands. All of their official account (Youtube, ig, fb, spotify, itunes, etc.) used Blackpink. Even their native name in Korean is written in a single word without space. — Duskmoon2005 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesnt matter what their official preference at the social media is, the rules at MOS:TM are clear – "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Both "Blackpink" and "Black Pink" are more or less equaly used in the reliable sources, but "Black Pink" does "most closely resembles standard English", while "Blackpink" does not, pretty much same as BIGBANG example provided by another user above, the article has been named "Big Bang" for over a decade and is even a "Good Article", and no one has had a problem with that. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You're using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Either way, just a simple look at google trends reveals that "Big Bang" is much more searched than "BigBang", but searches for "Blackpink" far outweigh "Black Pink". Almost every reliable source, including primary sources (their social medias, YouTube, Spotify, iTunes) go with them as one word. Billboard magazine, which is considered the most reliable source for music related information, always goes with Blackpink as one word [18], their chart history page also has them combined.--NØ 12:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You know that "Big Bang" has several meanings inlcuidng a famous theory, and this is why its far more searched than "Bigbang", right? Snowflake91 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You're just asserting they are more or less equally used. You have provided no evidence to back up this claim — you have provided evidence both are used, but none to prove both are equally used. Additionally, you're selectively invoking MOSTM, in a way that conflated formatting (capitalisation) with spelling. It explicitly says not to respell, giving the very comparable example of not respelling Craigslist to Craig's List. And like this, if I'm determined I can always find sources that use that spelling [19]. -Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, as Snowflake91 has pointed out, MOS:TM clearly states to use that which is closer to standard English used by INDEPENDENT sources, which rules out all of their social media platforms as those are not independent. Using “Thank U, Next” as an example doesn’t really count here, as no sources have ever used “Thank You, Next”, while sources in this case HAVE used both spellings. Per MOS:TM, the current name is correct and fine, don’t change something thay isn’t broken. Alexanderlee (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
They don't use them equally, outside of K-Pop specific sources. No one has refuted this. And there are examples of Thank You, Next. Like most things, if you're determined enough to find a source for what you want, you can. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — MOS:TM does state that we should try to be as close to standard English as possible, however, we are discussing about names here; I do not think that you can say one is closer to standard English than the other. I believe that MOS TM is more for cases such as when I decide to name something "cRAFT", in this case "Craft" can be said to be closer to standard English. I do not think there is a right or wrong for names. For example, "alot" is the incorrect way of writing "a lot", however, if "alot" is used as a name for something, you cannot say it is a further from standard English than "a lot". The rules for names are far more flexible. Since there are more sources using "Blackpink" over "Black Pink", I do not see a reason to not use it if both are correct English. We should remember we are discussing about names, not vocabulary. Equil빵(talk) 13:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've merged the above comment by Hyperius1255 which was made in a new section but shouldn't have since it concerns the same discussion. [20]--NØ 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This is blatantly not what MOSTM says. It is the most common name, and remove stylisations. It is not "the most common name, and exclude any candidates which had stylisation". This interpretation is not only plainly not what MOSTM says (like Snowflake91 you're completely ignoring the explicit instruction not to respell proper nouns), but it would lead to absurd situations where an entity whose only common name had stylisations, had no obvious candidates for where to place it. i.e., if this were the policy we would have nowhere to place SHINee because most sources do keep the stylisation.
No spelling for a proper noun is a "stylisation", which is what you're suggesting. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Changed to Support per points below that Blackpink actually is a commonly used name.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Amakuru that we should go with WP:COMMONNAME. But per feminist and DanielleTH it appears the COMMONNAME is Blackpink. I'm curious about why Amakuru believes it's Black Pink, and am open to being persuaded accordingly, but in the mean time I'm supporting per the evidence presented by the nom, and these two. --В²C ☎ 02:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: MOS:TM states that "if reliable sources overwhelmingly favor a particular spelling and punctuation, use it in Wikipedia, but do not simply attempt to mimic graphical marketing materials". A quick search on reliable sources (NME, The Independent, CNA, et al.) suggest that the merged "Blackpink" (in addition to its stylized "BlackPink" and "BLACKPINK") is more frequently used by reliable sources than "Black Pink". To avoid mimicking the promotional "BLACKPINK", "Blackpink" is the more apt title than the two word "Black Pink". Chihciboy (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:MOS-TM does not indicate that the lack of a space in a name should be considered a stylization. It says that trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call, which allows us to decide between "OxyContin" and "Oxycontin", but it does not say we should go with "Oxy Contin" in such a scenario. It also says not to "correct" the spelling or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources, including not writing "Craigslist" as "Craig's List". On the whole, this would appear to allow "Blackpink" if it (or "BLACKPINK") is the common name in reliable sources, and it does appear to be. Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support go with The Sun Blackpink, note also BlackPink camelcase per Forbes. Absolutely strongly oppose BLACKPINK all caps under any circumstances. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems fairly evident to me that "Blackpink" is both the correct and the common name. If anything, MOS:TM supports this move. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support or move to BlackPink. The current form does not appear to be as commonly used as these alternatives. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

Under the Endorsements section, where it saids In July 28, 2018, In should say On.2600:1702:AB0:D890:4DD0:DE32:A92F:9F78 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out. Alexanderlee (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

Change 300px-20190106_(NEWSEN)_블랙핑크(BLACKPINK),_수줍은_많은_소녀지만_돋보이는_아름다운_미모_(Golden_Disc_Awards_2019)_(2).jpg to mgid-ao-image-mtv.com-672311.jpg in order to update the front picture so that it match to the current era of BLACKPINK. LiberteBebe (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because its copryrighted. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lisa (born 1997) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lisa (born 1997). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

All four members need to be highlighted every time their name is listed. Only Jennie is currently and the other three members are not and need to be highlighted with a brief biography every time they are listed immediately. (currently in the first paragraph and to the right under BLACKPINK biography) All four members are as follows.

Kim Jisoo, also know by the mononym Jisoo. She is a South Korean kpop singer and model. She debuted as a member of the female group BLACKPINK in August 2016, under YG Entertainment.

Jennie Kim, also know by the mononym Jennie. She is a South Korean kpop rapper, singer and model. She debuted as a member of the female group BLACKPINK in August 2016, under YG Entertainment.

Park Chae Young, also know by the mononym Rosé. She is an Australian kpop singer and model. She debuted as a member of the female group BLACKPINK in August 2016, under YG Entertainment.

Lalisa Manoban, also know by the monoym Lisa. She is a Thai kpop rapper, singer and model. She debuted as a member of the female group BLACKPINK in August 2016, under YG Entertainment. JojoLopez27 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

They dont have articles since they fail WP:NSINGER if that's what you're asking. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
JojoLopez27, it's not clear what you want to have changed in the article concerning this. They're all singers, dancers, visuals, actors, (some rappers), and models, so their occupations should be "Singer, Korean idol". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
JojoLopez27, per MOS:BOLD, the names could be highlighted, but not a requirement. They shouldn't be bolded in every section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

We need to change the views of Blankpink song named DDU-DU DDU-DU with a 827,907,758 views updated at the day 31th of May 2019 49.148.226.14 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, only the records are mentioned, not something random like the current number of views Snowflake91 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackpink/Archive_1&oldid=1255840498"