Talk:Apink/Archive 2

Number of images in article
I think there are probably too many images in the article. In particular, I think all the images in the member section should be removed because some of the sections are very short and can't accommodate an image. Once I have done a copy edit, the sections may become even shorter. --Random86 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. In parts of the article, the images squeeze the text.  Some of the pictures of the group are basically the same, just in different outfits.  Just pick the best ones, and delete the rest. People can click on Commons box if they want to see more pictures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the removal of individual member's photos since those photos are important information to identified each member, especially since they are no longer have individual article. We can use smaller image or create gallery like this. It has been used on featured article for Nine Inch Nails. I saw example of other featured article of member list  like Slipknot, Megadeth and Red Hot Chili Peppers and they all included individual member pictures.


 * If the problem is because there are too much pictures on the main article, how about move the member info back to stand alone list like before. It seems to be more common here to have standalone list when many members don't have their individual articles. For example Exo and One Direction Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think A Pink is still a relatively short article, so even 4 group pictures to me, are already too many.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with TerryAlex. We could keep one of the photos with Yookyung and remove the others. -- Chiya92 17:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sonflower0210, the members are identified in the infobox image. Very small individual images might be an option, but I'd want to get more opinions on that. I don't think a gallery is a good idea. Moving the members back to a stand alone list wouldn't make a difference because the amount of text would (or should) be the same, and most of the sections are short. --Random86 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive
I've boldly set to archive old discussions. Threads which last comments are older than 4 weeks will be archived, while it will leave 1 latest thread. Hope nobody cares, &mdash; Revi 04:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Music charts
The only official charts are Gaon, Oricon, and Billboard. The real time music charts that are mentioned (Melon, Olleh, Daum, Naver, Bugs, Soribada, etc.) are single-vendor charts like iTunes. The single-vendor charts are mentioned often in K-pop articles, but I don't know if that is good practice. --Random86 (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think vendor charts are significant. They go up and down every minute.  I suggest that we remove the references to the vendor charts.  Is Mnet also just a vendor chart? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mnet is a vendor chart as well. I think it makes sense to remove references to vendor charts (per WP:CHART). --Random86 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, good work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images on Commons
There are lots of images on Commons. Some of them contain just two or three band members, but the images often do not identify who is shown in the image. Can someone add that to the image descriptions? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. -- Chiya92 09:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Chiya92 09:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, so fast! Great work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fan club
I removed the information about their fan club. The name of it does not appear to be important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards
Just wondering: What is their most important/prestigious award to date? Is it from the most prestigious music award organization in Korea? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mention any award(s) in Lead?
 * The most prestigious is probably the Golden Disk Awards. --Random86 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's worth mentioning in the Lead? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of citation needed for the no of awards?I thought since sources can be find on the list of awards page, they don't need it? Do we need to put all those 20s award ref again or how should it be done? Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How to reference the awards?
 * There should be a recent article about the group that says "A Pink has more than ____ music awards" or something like that. Does this article say it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the article did mention about no of music shows wins but only for 2014. But they won the most this year so maybe we could use this? But not for other awards, I haven't found any article that summarize their awards from debut until now though. Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful information to say how many they won just in 2014. I agree with you that one can count them up on the List of Awards page, but that page seems to be incompletely referenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Award show usually held after new year. For example Golden Disk Award for 2014 held in January 2015. Do we put it on the list of awards for the year 2014 or 2015? Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Award Year


 * I'm not sure. Does anyone know? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd put it in 2014, as it is based on their actions in 2014. 2nd opinion welcome. &mdash; Revi 17:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Title
Should it be Apink, A Pink or A-Pink? Things to consider: Sonflower0210 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Their official trademark name is "APINK" with all capital letters and it's written as "Apink" on their official website as well as their profile on Mwave, Naver, Daum,etc
 * Is it consider one or two words? If it's one word, Shouldn't we follow this guideline? WP:BANDNAME and MOS:Trademarks
 * English-language reliable sources has varied between "Apink" and "A Pink"
 * Consider WP:OFFICIALNAME. &mdash; Revi 05:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Was there previously a discussion about the article name either here or elsewhere?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find a previous discussion. I did some Google searches for Apink and A Pink, and here's what I found.
 * Mwave uses A Pink
 * Chosun Ilbo uses A Pink
 * Korea JoongAng Daily uses both, but mostly A Pink
 * Billboard uses both, but mostly Apink
 * Korea Herald and Kpop Herald use Apink
 * --Random86 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my first thought is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any objection for rename/move to "Apink"? If this is not a controversial move, I would like to request the move. Since both are commonly used name in English-language reliable sources and "Apink" are more appropriate according to WP:BANDNAME and MOS:TM. Moreover I'm not sure if this is wiki related or if wiki care about stuff like this but "A Pink" have disambiguation meaning in English, For example: when I tried to search google news there are no related search to the group it's only resulted to news related to the color. On Facebook search, when I tried to search A Pink, it send me to the fake account and not the official account. Sonflower0210 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the objection is that there is no WP:CONSENSUS to make the move. You already asked this question yesterday, and so far, no one has supported the proposal. As people commented above, the current name is used by some media, so it does not seem to be "wrong" per WP:OFFICIALNAME. It the title is not wrong, then I think that no move is necessary. But others may weigh in to support the proposal. By the way, changing the name of an article is always controversial, in the sense that whoever named the article thought that the name was correct, so whenever you propose a move, you should anticipate that at least one person may disagree with you.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw this guideline about technical moves WP:RM. "If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g spelling), please feel free to move the page yourself." I don't think this page also fit the criteria mention there for controversial move.


 * Moreover, I saw similar case for Shinee and Got7. All English reliable sources using their stylized name which are written as "SHINee" and "GOT7" however the article name are following Wiki MOS. In the case where English-language reliable sources using stylized name that are not as per WP:BANDNAME and MOS:TM standard, which one should editors follow? Sonflower0210 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[moving left] ''' Oppose. This is the third time you have proposed this. I still do not see a WP:CONSENSUS. I'm going to vote against the move for now. This is not just fixing a typo or a mistake. The guideline that you point out, WP:RM, states clearly that if there is any "debate about the best title for the page", then the move is "potentially controversial". Several people have contributed to this discussion, and none of them supported your view, so, Drop it for now. It is disruptive to keep repeating the same request, when you aren't getting any positive response. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this is potential to be a controversial move, I will follow the formal requested move process at WP:RM. Sonflower0210 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, good. That is the right way to do it!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2015

 * 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: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A Pink → Apink – According to Article title policy: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles."

Both version are commonly used in multiple English-language reliable sources. However proposed name "Apink" are more appropriate considering the 5 characteristics of a good Wikipedia article title on the article title policy:


 * 1) Recognizability and Naturalness - The group is listed under this name on Billboard, Youtube, Naver, major retailers such as iTunes and Melon as well as their official website. Therefore, it will be the title that the reader will most likely look for.
 * 2) Conciseness and Precision - "A Pink" is ambiguous in English language and can be misleading as "a" color "Pink" while "Apink" is unique and unambiguous. It can be seen on Google News search from Jan 1 - Feb 12. The search result for "A Pink" are not related to the group but to the color "Pink" while the result for "Apink" are related to the group
 * 3) Consistency - The proposed title is consistent with WP:BANDNAME and MOS:TM guideline. Sonflower0210 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems like "Apink" is more common anyway, and this move will have the added bonus of being much more clearly and distinctively about the band, rather than a strange English phrase. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Apink doesn't appear to violate MOS:TM or any other guideline. There's nothing wrong with A Pink as a title (since reliable sources use both), but I prefer Apink since it is the official name and also commonly used. Gaon Chart also uses Apink, for what it's worth. --Random86 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose they are called A-Pink not "appinck", this is a stylism which is unhelpful to non-fans. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does contravene WP:BANDNAME which refers back to MOS:TMRULES as the word needs to follow normal English capitalisation rules. Even if the management prefers something else. However, you might want to put in a redirect on the Apink name. Karst (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The group name only consist of one word and registered as "APINK". So I believe the correct format English capitalization is "Apink" based on WP:BANDNAME and MOS:TMRULES. Just like Coldplay, Boyzone, Westlife and Radiohead -- Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those bands use nouns and follow English naming and capitalisation conventions. "Apink" is a stylistic variation (as with Korn - with the letter 'r' backwards) that is ungrammatical and thus does not follow MOS:TMRULES. Karst (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain further how Apink is different from Coldplay? Isn't Apink two nouns as well? (A is the letter A, not the word.) Random86 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, it would still be ungrammatical (referring to the letter would be: 'A pink letter A' or The pink A). In the case of Coldplay, it is using Cold as an adjective. Similar to Radio and Head and Boy and Zone. Here, the A says nothing about Pink, so it is not an adjective. If it is an abbreviation of some sort (like A-level; you would expect a hyphen. Similarly for referring to the shape of the letter A-line. When it concerns technical/scientific terms, the letter is always displayed separate, like in A battery. See A (disambiguation) for all the options. It would be interesting to know what the story is behind the choice of the name. Does the pronunciation of "appinck" have any meaning in Korean language? Is it a form of wordplay? Or is it transfer/interpretation from the character associated with the letter a? Karst (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why you think "Coldplay", "Radiohead" are not ungrammatical while "Apink" is. The other examples you used are also not trademark names so it can't be treated the same. However I don't think it matters, because all names including trademark names are not required to be grammatically correct or have meaning. They registered their name as "APINK" which is consist of one made-up word not two English word "A" and "Pink". So it makes the group name "APINK" a Proper_noun. Just like the name "Alice", we don't write it as "A Lice". Also, MOS:TMRULES didn't say that trademark names need to have proper English meaning, it only said we should "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules". So it should be "Apink" just like "ASUS - Asus", "nintendo - Nintendo", etc. Sonflower0210 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Karst, I understand what you mean now. Here's what I found on the name's meaning: "All members love pink and they want to get straight A across the board. That's how the name of the group was conceived." Sonflower0210, the A in Alice is not the letter A or the word. It is not even English, so that comparison doesn't make sense. Apink is not really one made-up word; it is two English words put together. That being said, I'm still not seeing how Apink violates the MOS. The capitalization rules are that the first letter of the name should be capitalized, and the name should not be in all-caps. It doesn't say anything about being grammatically correct, unless I missed something. Random86 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Per Random86. &mdash; Revi 14:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I am now persuaded that Apink is the more recognizable usage and by the idea that the name change will make the article easier to find on Google searches. I also give weight to the fact that the article's most active editors now support the change, all of which overcome my general opinion that articles should not be renamed unless there is a good reason for doing so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Yep it seems it's a lot easier to recognize Apink than it is to recognize A Pink as the group, it gives more specific results too Danny2579 (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Add comment as nominator - In addition to the above good title criteria, "Apink" is also more appropriate based on below policies because it's more unique and unambiguous than "A Pink":
 * - WP:COMMONNAME - "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous (Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack.) or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."


 * - WP:NATURAL - "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title."


 * 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.

Tour/Performances
While the mention of a performance that sells out quickly and attracts large numbers is obviously relevant, the listing of every show the group does fails WP:TOUR. Especially when these are scheduled and haven't happened yet (see WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTNEWS). Karst (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the link you gave for the tour is not the right one? It's not directed to any policy. Also can you please quote the policy statement that you refer to? I'm still confused after reading the other two since the event are in near future and has been covered by reliable source, especially for their own solo concert? Why can't we include them in their article?Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should be WP:CONCERT TOUR. The policy it outlined there - hope that makes sense. If we are going to list every performance that the group has scheduled, the page will start to read like a diary (see WP:NOTNEWS. If a gig attracts large amount of press (see for instance The Rolling Stones concerts) then it makes sense to mention them. In this case scheduled performances in Singapore and Vietnam and a showcase in LA are not (yet) notable. They might turn out to be for whatever reason; we don't know that yet - hence WP:FUTURE. Karst (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That policy and example you mention are all refer to standalone article for concert tours. I'm not trying to create separate article but just to put it in their main article. Singapore concert is significant for their career because it's their first overseas solo concert. The Japanese perf also part of their upcoming released schedule. These information can be verifiable and it almost certain to take place. So I'm not sure what is the problem here. I'm not trying to include all their performances information like small university festival here, only notables one that had been covered by media. I also saw other kpop group articles here, here and here, they include this type of information of future planned performances so I still don't see the problem here.Sonflower0210 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability aspect of the concert tours applies to individual concerts as well. That really is not any different. In general with pop/rock music articles the tendency is to avoid lists of future concert dates. The experience is that they get cancelled or moved for some reason or lack any notability because all the third party sources mention is that the act will perform. Nothing else. It often means that you get an article or section littered with announcements of festival dates and other shows that starts to get a somewhat of a promotional wiff about it. That said, if there are a number of third party sources highlighting that the Singapore show is the first one outside of South Korea, then it should be included. Although I thought they did a show in Japan before? What other pages list, is not relevant here. And if that falls under WP:CRYSTAL it probably should be looked at. Hope that makes sense.Karst (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Japan one was a showcase not a solo concert. There are a few articles that mention this as their first overseas concert here and here. I'll include them in the article. The reason why I've included those examples because they're are exactly the same case, so it seems to be the common practice here.
 * Hi, I would like to ask your input on this, since I saw that you included upcoming performance info on Crayon pop page. I also saw those kind of info on other kpop page too here and here. What do you think about this? Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I didn't add the upcoming performance on Crayon Pop. But, since you asked, I'll say Apink's concert in Singapore looks notable since it's their first overseas solo concert. Random86 (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

, my advice to you: Do not look at other Kpop articles as an example. All Kpop articles need a lot of editing.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , since you both an active editor and working on projects to improve Kpop articles, may i know your opinion about this then? Should we include information about upcoming performances like Girls Generation in Philippines, Crayon Pop in US, Apink in Hanoi+US? Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles recreated by SkateABaround
Attn: Random86, TerryAlex &/or other editors,

It seems that a new user had just recreated/separated out Park Cho-rong, Yoon Bo-mi & Son Na-eun from this main article, which from what I see is going against this consensus made before. Also, it seems that he/she just copy the text from here, especially for Bo-mi & Na-eun article, which is not helpful at all.. I'm not sure whether to revert it or not, so I'm leaving that to you. Thanks. (Edward (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC))
 * IMHO, it should be reverted. --ChoHyeri (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should probably be reverted. I'm not convinced these members have become more independently notable since the deletion discussion. Random86 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Revert. Nothing changed since the deletion discussion. -- Chiya92 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. (Edward (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC))
 * Looks like someone is starting an edit war after my reverts. I'm not going to engage with him/her anymore, but I did direct him/her here. (Edward (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC))
 * turned out to be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Random86 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. (Edward (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC))