Talk:Itzy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

This group satisfies the first notability criterion for musicians and ensembles. They have been the subject of non-trivial articles by multiple reliable sources: Billboard, The Korea Times, and Korea Joongang Daily. Jwuthe2 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Basis for using "stylized as ITZY" vs. "stylized in all caps"

The "stylized as _____" format is used in the featured article Nine Inch Nails and the good article Big Bang (South Korean band). I could not find a quality precedent for the "stylized in all caps" format which, additionally, seems to predominantly be used for song/album articles. Jwuthe2 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Members order

Every k-pop group has their members listed in order of age, because that has been firmly established as the correct way of formatting. The "Other Stuff Exists" counter-argument is invalid because it clearly states that it can be used as a valid argument as "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

If you can find a reason why Itzy should be the sole exception among all the k-pop groups then please, share your reason, but until then leave it how it should be: IN ORDER OF AGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.179 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not every kpop article does. The template says members should be listed in order of joining, alphabetically. Kpop articles shouldn’t be an exception and going against the order which majority of other group articles use, and other articles should idealy be changed to this order too. “How it should be” is how it already is — alphabetically.Alexanderlee (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

While most (certainly not every) page is or could be in order of age is there actually a specific manual of style for this? It is stated above that this has been firmly established as the correct way but I cannot find this anywhere. If anyone could link me that it would be appreciated. Just because it has been and is done in a certain way that doesn't mean it's the correct way. In this case the template has a clear explanation of how the order should be. If anyone is concerned with pages being consistent across Wikipedia changing everything to the way the template documentation recommends would also solve this problem, so that doesn't seem like a water tight argument. Furthermore if I change every page to reverse alphabetical order and say "all pages are like this so this one should be too for consistency" other stuff exists might apply however no one would agree with me. Consistency is one thing, but the right thing is another. In my opinion kpop articles should not be different from any other usage of the template infobox musical artist and I would recommend actually changing all other articles to make right usage of the template, unless proof is provided that it should be in order of age by styling guidelines. If not I support a full revert to the revision by User:Alexanderlee. For now I have done a partial revert because the template documentation is clear about the order. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As Wikipedia states itself, if it makes more logical sense to do something differently than what the rules states, it should be done that way. There is a reason why it is common practice to list the members by age; it's not random. This style guideline was made with Western bands in mind, where Confucianism is largely absent, while in Korea, it is not and thus influences the way things are written. As I stated on BTS' talk page, age order, or leader first + age order is also how K-Pop groups are most commonly listed outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia prefers to follow what's generally used, and this is for reason, as a new reader will likely find the group listed in age order when looking at other sources, and a reader familiar on the topic will expect it in such an order. It's also what GA articles like Girls' Generation and Big Bang use. Why replace the commonly used listing with pointless organization such as alphabetization when it makes it less useful to readers? Because a rule states it?

Inviting frequent K-Pop related editors Chiyako92, NicklausAU, Snowflake91, Abdotorg, Random86, Ukiss2ne14lyfe, Orentbyte, and anyone else who'd like to contribute to this discussion to chyme in. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there's already precedence for this and I haven't seen any good reason to change it offered it seems better to keep doing it by age. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

for k-pop article, as far i know they always write the member list order by age (from older to younger), this is commonly used for a kpop group for example GA articles like Girls' Generation and Big Bang. and as i seen in other article like One Direction or Fifth Harmony, they're NOT using alphabetically. Orentbyte (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the same as DanielleTH, Ukiss2ne14lyfe and Orentbyte. Age order for K-pop groups is more familiar. --Chiya⁹² 09:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DanielleTH's reasoning for keeping the members in age order. (BTW, Orentbyte, One Direction and Fifth Harmony members are listed alphabetically.) Random86 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag DanielleTH. I don't believe the type of order is important, but I definitely agree that it should be consistent. It appears that most articles about more popular and widely known kpop groups (including the only two current GAs on kpop groups) both list the members by age. Anyone seeking to alter what looks like a consensus on this topic must provide a strong reason to do so, which I haven't seen yet. Also, I'm honestly sorry for this shameless plug... but if anyone is interested in expanding the list of GAs for kpop articles, please consider reviewing this article. It's been nominated for 9 months without a review. NicklausAU 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Choi Ji-su listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Choi Ji-su. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Romanization of the name

We have different romanizations: If going by pure letter-to-letter, the romanization is Issji, and the Pusan National University conversion tool lists this as "Academical application area".

But however, the Itji romanization is also valid, and is listed in the Pusan National University conversion tool as "Proper noun".

Which form takes higher precedence? --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@CrystallineLeMonde: Itji is correct going by the Revised Romanization of Korea#Transcription rules. Alex (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Popularity and Message

There are many sources and articles describing Itzy as one of the top girl groups in South Korea. If that was included on their page, would it not be considered neutral? There are many other groups with similar phrases on their pages, such as Blackpink and Twice and even Red Velvet.

Also, another thing is their message. Most articles, and people say that Itzy have empowering lyrics, with a confidence and self-love concept. That is even written in the official page, saying "Its empowering lyrics have been well received by the audience" as well as "themes of independence and self-love". News sources such as Forbes, have stated in their articles that Itzy has a self-love, confidence, and motivational concept throughout their songs. That was how Itzy gained popularity in the first place. So again, would stating that on their bio be neutral, because it has been said by hundreds of other people that are not me? Or would it be biased, since it does make them seem more interesting?(even though they already are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamskilt (talk • contribs) 06:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Itzy members

Hello! I would like to ask why itzy members don't already have their own pages on Wikipedia although they have been around for 2 yrs now Maya rodrigo (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maya rodrigo: Articles aren't created based on how long someone has been around. Each article subject must meet notability requirements; in this case those would be the general notability guideline and the criteria for musicians and ensembles, once the members are individually notable outside of the group. Alex (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Maya rodrigo (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Infobox should summarize the information in the article, I made the edit here. Artist like Taylor Swift has that in her infobox, which is a great improvement on the article as you can easily access the works of the artist. But users @Nkon21 and @Lightoil are saying it's unnecessary, I couldn't understand, like, why an improvement is unnecessary, what are the rationales why it's unnecessary? 120.29.79.39 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Its unnecessary because it does not serve any function that isn't already covered by the navigation templates below, which already summarizes the details on the works of the artists in a way that that is better and provides navigation on articles related to their work. In addition, changes to the infobox are major and are oftentimes controversial, which means you should've sought guidance here before acting on your idea. Also, Swift's article has no such thing. If anything, you should either suggest this idea elsewhere (within a talk page), or just drop it entirely as it seems like most concerned editors are against the change, and any further edits to have the module in the infobox would be considered disruptive editing. EdrianJustine (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Make that oppose to 4. I already stated that clearly to the IP IN ENGLISH through my talk page which they sadly failed to understood hence ending that communication otherwise I would end up in the hospital instead. To reiterate here again for all, the changes are not an improvement and that they're abusing the Infobox by introducing inconsistency and also abusing the Infobox's module parameter to serve their own needs in the pretense that it's an improvement which it clearly isn't. They also stated on my talk page that because Taylor Swift's article uses that means that they can happily add that anywhere (so far to Itzy and Aespa) and however they please without even knowing (again this was clearly communicated) that Swift's article uses a different Infobox (experienced editor would know this) compared to Itzy and Aespa. Echoing EdrianJustine comments above, IP should Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass with immediate effect (which I also clearly stated to them but they chosen to join the dark side by edit warring instead) instead of WP:IDHT WP:CONSENSUS. If this unacceptable behaviour still continues a month later under this range and/or under newly created acct, I endorse indef block, as protection simply wouldn't make do unless ECP level. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. Regarding the navigation templates below, well, they are at the bottom of the article while infobox is on top which is easier to see. Also,Taylor Swift has such thing, the works in her infobox: albums, singles, songs, aka discography; tours which is the performances; and awards which are right below those. I dont think its unnecessary at all, that option of discography is literally on the infobox documentation (i used module btw because there are also tours and awards to list). Yes, it is true that they are slightly different infobox, one is for music and the other is for person. Could have been utilized the discography instead of the module to be honest, when literally thinking of musical artist, you will think of music or their discography, I'm not sure why most articles dont put that discography/module in infobox. There is a reason Taylor Swift is a Featured article, using it as a basis won't make the other inferior. I feel like the status quo is not ready for such 120.29.79.39 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Born to be has been revealed to be a mini album

JYPE has listed Born to BE as a mini album on their website and press releases, making it the 8th mini album, instead of titling it the second full album as previously was thought. I dont know how to edit the sections in the boxes that show albums vs EP/mini, but was able to correct text lines. whatever JYPE's reasons for this classification, its likely going to be confusing when they do eventually title the second full album and ninth mini album. Tonymack21 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

For the meantime, I have opened an RfC regarding this matter on the Born to Be talkpage, as this has been a constant point of controversy. Not one edit will dictate such a change. EdrianJustine (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes there has certainly been a lot of confusion about it. 47.186.156.183 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes there has certainly been a lot of confusion about it, likely because the term "album" is used in kpop very generally and it was assumed based on the amount of tracks it would titled an LP as it was over 8. But now that the album listings are up it says "mini album" on it. Tonymack21 (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)