Talk:The First Bloooooming

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Name?

I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and it appears that the title of the article should be under The First Bloooooming. Thoughts? SKS (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Blooming → The First Bloooooming — Technically correct title, and per agreement at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. —SKS (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Currently name is only official title.--Historiographer (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official according to who? The album cover clearly states "Bloooooming", and if we're going by Korean media, "The First" refers to the fact that it's the first album, so then it would officially just be "Blooming"/"Bloooooming". I also brought this question to Naming conventions (as referred above), and it brought some interesting responses... :) SKS (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted "Bloooooming" also used in many articles. However, See you this pages 1, 2, 3, 4. Usually, "Blooming" is used than "Bloooooming" in many potal and music sites of Korea.--Historiographer (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But like I mentioned earlier, it just uses "Blooming" so does that mean the article should be moved there? It's a mess, when you think about it, because you can argue this many different ways. SKS (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, various other shops list it as "Bloooooming" ([1], [2], [3], and [4]). One caveat, though — non-Korean retailers seem to list it under its technical title, whereas a majority of Korean shops list it as "Blooming". So there are basically two issues here:

Should we use the title that's on the CD, or should we use the title that people have "corrected"? AND
Should we use the short title that most Koreans use, or should we use the full title that technically shouldn't be the full title because "The First" refers to it being the first album and is actually not part of the title?

A search in Google News shows that most Korean news articles referred to the short, correctly spelled title: that is, Blooming. SKS (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't matter what the "real" name is. Inserting a couple more o's is a style choice. The closest resemblance to english is always the preference (WP:MOSTM).--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Naming Conventions. Closest resemblance to English is not always the preference, and in this case, it is the name of a work, not a trademark. SKS (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wikilawyering, please. "Not a trademark" is not an argument. That page is so titled for historical reasons. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be (but it could be because I work at a law office anyway :P). I don't consider the incorrect spelling to simply be a stylistic choice, like a brand. And as per my question at naming conventions (which I have referred to many times, and which is the only reason why I brought up this possible move in the first place), there are examples of many works that are under titles that are intentionally spelled incorrectly (Inglourious Basterds is the best recent example), so saying that WP:MOSTM is the final word is quite debatable in this instance. Again, it is the name of a work, not a brand.

The main reason I'm bringing this up at all is because I don't believe that the page right now is at its correct title. As previously stated, the title in its native country (South Korea) is simply Blooming, according to most reliable sources; news articles and most online stores list it as such (see this search in Google News and use the same terms in Google to see the various online shops). The title in Korean Wikipedia is ko:The First Bloooooming, which is backed up by (obviously) the cover (and interestingly goes against the short name of Blooming). Outside of blogs and forums, no one uses The First Blooming as the title. (FYI: Korean blogs and forums are split on the correct name, whereas international ones favour the correctly spelled one.) I will totally be fine with leaving the title the way it is, but a) it's the least supported of the three possible names for this page, and b) I don't get, then, why the people at WP:NC told me otherwise. :P SKS (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not in high enough use in the english language to merit exception. The requested title remains a style choice of "blooming".--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This name is not in high enough use in the english language to merit exception" - how is this relevant to whether or not the title "The First Bloooooming" is technically correct? Just because it's not a popular album, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve our attention. What kind of encyclopedia would this be were that the case? And it's not merely a requested title. As you can see from the album cover, it's a requested reversal of a mistake, possibly instituted by an overzealous advocate of WP:MOSTM. In this case, "blooming" remains a style choice (by someone other than the artist) of "bloooooming". File this under Strongly Support. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, 81.111.114.131 - an album title is not a trademark. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cover apparently uses "Bloooooooooooooooooooooooming" (or whatever nonsense it actually is ), as can be seen at File:Kara01.jpg, so... *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the album title is clearly spelled "Bloooooming". We don't go around correcting other people's typos, only their styles. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For those who cite WP:MOSTM, read it first. I doesn't mention spelling. Now read the title on the album cover at File:Kara01.jpg. We don't go around respelling Uncle Cracker, Corn, Deaf Leopard, or Lead Zeppelin. — AjaxSmack 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 April 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed; the previous discussion ended in an absence of consensus, and the current title therefore receives no deference. Proponents of the move incorporate the arguments from the previous discussion, which correctly notes that Wikipedia does not correct spelling. bd2412 T 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The First Blooming → The First Bloooooming – the album title is plainly spelled Bloooooming. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the 2010 requested move above MOS:TM, and you haven't provided any more points than was already discussed in 2010. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the 3:2 !vote in the previous RM in favour of the move and the, I think, stronger arguments in the last three (support) !votes. Greg Kaye 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MOS:TM is irrelevant, and seems the only argument yet proposed against the move. It's borderline whether the former RM could have gone to move review in view of this and the majority favouring the move. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.