Talk:One Direction/Archive 2

Members Page Pictures
I think that their individual pictures in the 'members' section should be changed to clearer, more headshot like, pictures. In Harry's picture the mic blocks his face, Liam and Zayn's are only half of a face, Louis' is a bit far away, and Niall's should be changed to match the change of the other boys' pictures. Trenton Davis 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentond (talk • contribs)

These are the images Wikipedia maintains of One Direction select and suggest a few which you think is better. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 14 July 2012
OH MY GOD!!!!!! You spelled Zayn's middle name wrong!!! It's not Javadd!!!!!!!!! It's Jawaad!!! You should check before you publish this and giving people the wrong information and making even more directionators!!!!! Seriously!!!! I'm disappointed in this site!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.58.95 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a source from UK archive not social media websites (which is the only thing you have right?, probably a tumblr message) sick and tired of this constant outcry when they present no source. Wasting my time have a nice day AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to point out that when you Google "Zayn Javaad Malik", "Javaad" is underlined with a red line and it says "Did you mean Zayn Jawaad Malik?" Unreal7 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did I the same thing no such result and google just presents what most people are looking for that doesn't mean its true and without a source it still has no reason to be replaced, and according to UK archive it "Javadd" not "Javaad".AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we find the tweet Zayn made saying officially what his middle name was and use it as a source somewhere in the article. It's argued about so much we should put it to rest. Trenton Davis (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even think that would considered as a source however I think its best to remove the middle names until we have better source, although I think the source is enough it states his mothers maiden name and that he was born yorkshire and since he is from Bradford which is in Yorkshire it makes sense AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However Davis do you still have that tweet do you know when he tweeted it maybe you can trace it?? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Google seems to come up with more articles for Zayn Jawaad Malik, than Zayn Javaad. However, various websites through Bing come up with both middle names. Wiki Answers comes up with Jawaad.--Mjs1991 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All search tools replicate what most people are looking for doesn't mean that its true AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A primary source is generally accepted for things like age and name; the tweet should be fine, providing it's verified that the person in question does in fact own the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the primary source is completely appropriate. -- MST ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Styling of dates

 * 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.

I'm closing this as it doesn't seem to end. While Event (year) is getting majority, I see that there is no clear consensus to make a change. Thus, I'd close this as no consensus and no changes are made. Once these guys release more albums and get old, I believe that again starting a talk will be the best option as the examples of FAs taken are having many such sections which can be a reason for the current look to look more like encyclopedia per various users. Thanks!  →TSU tp* 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether Years should be first or after the heading of the subsections of the One Direction section, thus Year:Event or Event (Year) 

There seems to be a big clash between certain users over whether the dates should come before the title followed by a colon, or if it should come after followed by the date in brackets. I for one am in favour of the date first and no brackets. Unreal7 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the dates should come first. It shows the flow of time more clearly in the ToC, and since the section is titled "History", it should be based on the times and not the designated titles of the time periods. – Jonadin (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should note user's level of reasoning and not the number of votes just like in AFD's as per WP:JUSTAVOTE. What Jonadin93 wrote is reasonings not just saying "it's not the right the way". What is ToC Jonadin93? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Music Freak did not cite any "reasonings" only that "its not the right way" (why? guideline?) which is not really reasoning is it. I however have cited bands that use this year-system " U2, Coldplay, The Beatles, Linkin Park, Snow Patrol, Oasis (band), Backstreet Boys I prefer this usage because some subsections are only one year and just 2010: looks a bit weird. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Putting the year first looks the most professional and like an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Starting with a number makes it look more professional and organized. And if there is only one year, it would likely be merged into other years. Oh, and by-the-by, nor did you cite any "reasonings" either. And it shows you have severe WP:OWN issues with the article claiming you're the, and I quote, "sole editor" of the article(s). If that is not showing signs of WP:OWN, I do not know what is. Just because other articles do that does not mean this one should either. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 02:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As per musicfreak i did cite reasonings i cited all those different bands which use it. The one year merging has already been discussed over era's anyway doesn't matter. Why does it indicate WP:OWN when I'm stating a fact I solely literally edit their articles its a fact that doesn't indicate WP:OWN at all, its a fact go revision histories I have built all of them with the occasional edits here and there of Unreal7 and KeithD apart of that no one edits their articles. If somone were to help or create pages for 1D I would not stop them and stand in their way but truth of the fact is thats not how it goes boybands are neglected on Wikipedia have you seen the articles of JLS, The Wanted, Big Time Rush (band), Hot Chelle Rae they have various typos, no pictures, and their sub articles are all stubs. I was just pointing out that I'm the only editor who works on their pages why does this indicate ownership. If somone would help woth all their articles I would happily work alongside them if would mean less editing for me. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * AdabowtheSecond, ToC stands for "Table of Contents". Also, it does not matter how Musicfreak7676 reasoned the revert because as soon as your edit was reverted you should have brought the discussion to the talk page as per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in order to avoid edit warring. Just because we are using "level of reasoning" over "votes" to decide solutions does not mean that the most righteous opinion automatically is allowed to be instigated. Therefore, your reasoning "I prefer this usage…" is simply a separate opinion that needs to be weighed by consensus. Just because you are the editor with the higher number of edits to the particular article does not mean your opinion does not need to go through consensus if it is rejected, because, as per WP:OWN, "No one … has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article."


 * Now, let's move on from these accusations (to stay civil) and solely discuss why the heading titles should be changed (to "Event (Year)") or why they should not be changed (stay "Year: Event"). I have already said I believe that putting the year first looks more organized, and I agree with Musicfreak7676's opinion that it also looks more encyclopedic. – Jonadin (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to comment on this. I personally prefer the "Event: Year" simply because the whole section is basically divided by era and not by year, the year is just there as an additional information to the eras.--  Krystaleen  03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one as attacked each other personally so I think were still pretty civil. This system especially with these one year subsections works much better why can't work for this article when it works for FA's such as The Beatles, U2 and GA'a like Coldplay AdabowtheSecond (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well as of right now, three vote for "Year: TITLE" and two vote for "TITLE (Year)". So either we decide for the majority as the consensus or wait for more outside opinions that are bystanders. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 16:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing is with "Year:Title' is not inline due to some subsections only being one year in the content box and in the hitory sections all even should be inline. Unreal didn't cite any reasonings. With (Event:Year) everything on the entire page is even and inline AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which I have also stated, they can be merged. So what if a section is one year or not, it's not going to offend someone, is it? If that's a big deal, we can merge years and cut sections down. You also did not cite any reason for your claim, just mentioning FA/GA articles. That's hardly a case. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * AdabowtheSecond, what do you mean by "Another thing is with 'Year:Title' is not inline due to…"? If you are talking about the text "Up All Night" being farther out than "Formation" in the Table of Contents because of the "2011–2012" versus "2010", that argument will be negligible once the group has been around long enough. There won't be sections for only one year after there has been enough years to make one-year sections unreasonable. If there were sections for only one year on The Beatles it would look ridiculous, but even so, using years is more flexible in allowing a shorter heading to encompass many different topics. One Direction could do many things in the next couple of years, and you wouldn't want "Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah (2015)" to be a title for a section because you can't have one for each small topic. Having the year first would give a clear indication to readers of what time period the section is about in case smaller things are left out of the examples in the section title. With The Beatles, you go to the article looking for "Formation", "Controversy", "Break-up", etc, whereas readers of One Direction's article are more likely to just be reading about them.
 * You are trying to change what is being done on this article based on articles of high quality, but it is important to note that, while the articles are about bands, the bands themselves are very different so things should be done differently. I'm not saying it needs to be this way because One Direction is "different", but you are trying to change what is not "incorrect" or "wrong" with no specific reason for improvement (if this would even be improvement) other than "this article does it". I'm pretty sure there's a policy on that somewhere but I can't recall its name… – Jonadin (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again we are working with era's not years. Using brackets is more organized and events should go first as they are most important. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But placing years first is more encyclopedia in alpha-numerical order. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore the years should be listed first. It's not about what "looks better". And what should it matter about what I may or may not contribute it to. Now you're making this WP:PERSONAL, which I do not agree with. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which anything gave you the idea that putting years first is more encyclopedic. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Beatles and U2 articles are considered to the best articles that Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia has to offer. The way you style years does not make it more encyclopedic in anyway AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Says who? It's alpha-numerical in an encyclopedia. And since Wikipedia is exactly that, years should be listed first. I don't know why they were changed in the first place, they were fine from, as you call it, September to now? Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need outside input we have hit a brick wall in this discussion AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the vote right now is two vs. three and if we go based on majority consensus, "Year: TITLE" is what is going to be kept. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Will someone give examples in sentences please, I'm not quite sure what the options are. Is this for running-prose or lists? ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the way the titles are. Some believe they should remain 2010: Formation, etc. while some think they should be changed to Formation (2010). Music Freak 7676 TALK! 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still not a complete sentence but okay, If you want to comply with our MoS, and most others, you would use Formation (2010), as in "The band peaked creatively with their third release, Formation (2010)." ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Not that. The title of each section is what we're talking about, not a sentence structure. The section titles. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I see, the question is whether "Formation: 2010" or "Formation (2010)" is most correct for section headers, the answer is that both are acceptable. I wish there was a more definite solution but there isn't one that I am aware of. You need to build a consensus here and agree, discuss it thoroughly and then perhaps hold an informal straw poll if needed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen articles where it is like: Stuff (2020) and articles with; 2020: stuff. For example; Linkin park (GA), MJ (FA), The Beatles (FA) have Stuff (2020) while Lady gaga (GA), Eminem (GA), Taylor Swift (GA) are with 2020: stuff. I haven't checked any more but both are used. Both look pretty good and any of them can be used. But if I were an viewer I will find 2020: stuff personally more useful then the other option as it makes it easy to navigate rather then in brackets. Though it doesn't make any big difference and the other one would also be useful. As far as looks are concerned, both are good while I prefer 2020: stuff as it looks a bit more encyclopediac. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you GabeMc and TheSpecialUser for opining AdabowtheSecond (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime, thanks for asking. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * GabeMc stole my statement. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having been watching for a while thought that I would give my 2 pence worth. I would go with the year following the description unless you are going to have each year separate as the actual title is the important information not the year(s) that it happened. You are looking for something and may not know when exactly it happened, thus you are more likely to want to get to the paragraph by some key word which should be at the front of the heading. Keith D (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On balance, I prefer the dates in brackets after the title. I think the average reader wanting to learn more will be more concerned about the subject matter first and then be assisted by being informed of the timeline, rather than arriving at the page with the question "what did they do in 2012". The Beatles page works like that for me. Lowthen (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I were a reader who knows nothing about those guys (which is true till some extend), I would find the title of less use as I'm not aware of anything about them. Thus in that case, date before the description is of better use and I can navigate easily.  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lowthen, you took the words right out of my mouth. I even wanted to use The Beatles article as an example too lol I don't really know anything about them as I was born way after they broke up, and I found the titles more useful than the dates. The dates could not be there for all I care, after all the actual paragraphs already contain dates for important events anyway.--  Krystaleen  07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As before i completely agree with Keith D, Krystaleen and lowthen, the years are inferior toward the actual information, The Beatles article is a perfect example of this. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG we get it. You like The Beatles article and every other article that supports your version. However, I still believe the years are inferior the the actual information regarding an encyclopedia, alpha-numerical. It's easier to navigate, as a previous user has stated. And looks much neater and formal. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say the exact opposite about navigation, formal and neatness anyway, as of now if I'm not mistaken its 4 users (Unreal7, Jonadin, Musicfreak7676, TheSpecialUser) in favor of Year:Event and 4 users (AdabowtheSecond, Keith D, Lowthen, Krystaleen) in favor of Event (Year). AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Year:Title is informal. At least with the numbers first it's alpha-numerical like a true encyclopedia. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You just wrote that.... AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So? You can write The Beatles and U2 and the same thing millions of times. So why can't I? Your reasoning doesn't prove anything to be like an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is, an online encyclopedia. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked various users to opine hopefully we will get some more opinions AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of the colon and no brackets. It is more stylish and visually attractive and instroduces the user first woth the years to be talked and then the notable information contained in those years. If we use the brackets, that may mean that the information on the heared is the only one to be mentioned and that is usually not true. — Hahc 21  19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In general the section headings should be sufficiently distinct and informative that they explain to the reader what that particular section covers, and I think the text appearing first is more immediately useful to the reader. For example, the key thing being covered in the first section is the X Factor contest and the band's formation, which I think is more relevant to the reader than the year(s). That said though, I don't have a strong opinion either way - both are ok - and would hope that you can just agree to go with one or the other, as the content within the sections is far more important.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It simply doesn't matter. This war over it is ridiculous.  Statυs (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After Status's denouncement, I would like to show how the page looks like with brackets. 1. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I say Event/Era (Year) because the Up All Night 'era' is going on in 2012 but there will obviously be a new heading for their next album later this year. It just makes sense since they do so much each year that dividing by year doesn't make much sense. Trenton Davis (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A refreshment of what the article looks like with brackets as of now AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But ending the era already says 2011-12. We're not arguing that, we're arguing chronically and encyclopedia-like pages, and putting the number first is the more encyclopedia-like way. It just doesn't look clean with the brackets. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and to keep with such, number should be listed first to keep with true form.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 05:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As of 27 July 2012, we should close the discussion, as it is then 7 days, 19 july 2012 User:Unreal7 opened it, just like with AFD's or else it could go on forever. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of article views
I thought it was worth noting that over the past few months this article has been consistently getting 60,000+ views per day. By my reckoning that puts it well inside the top 20 most viewed articles in the whole of Wikipedia. By comparison Google gets around 35,000 views per day and is in the top 25.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the insane number of hits the article has received over the last 5 months and am very proud and happy that I basically/solely wrote the most of it. I already posted a message of this a month ago on this talk an editor removed it due it according to him/her violated WP:NOTAFORUM the feeling that millions of people have been reading what I wrote is kind of nice. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * where can you view top 25 articles? I only know this one http://toolserver.org/~johang/wikitrends/english-most-visited-this-month.html but it only list the top 10.--  Krystaleen  02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see individual article stats at or project stats using . Keith D (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012
please change harry edward styles to harold edward milward styles

Igoesrawr2 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you Lots of love and respect MEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
 * Keith D (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the odd picture size?
I've noticed it since a while back, the picture size would often be at weird 127px or 166px, why is this? If you're trying to get the pics to properly line up with the text and such, it's only going to look good on your own monitor, because different monitor resolution=different layout. Just wondering because it seems weird to me.--  Krystaleen  04:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything looks fine and fits on my computer although due to everyone having a different size screen it may differ. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That was my point. It might even look odd on other monitors.--  Krystaleen  03:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2012
Please can I edit this page as i know exclusive information about the band's future tours!!!

CrazyCheese14 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just put the info here and if it's verifiable, it will be added to the page for you.--  Krystaleen  11:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing request because if requesting user knows 'exclusive information' it can't be verified. You can change the template from yes to no once sources are supplied. FloBo   A boat that can float!   (watch me float!)  12:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Niall Horan : Olympics 2012
Please write in Niall Horan's bio that at the London 2012 Summer Olympics Closing Ceremony, he was the only non-Biritish performer. Gurrrrrl12345 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Julissa


 * Do you have a source (link) for it AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Great Britain includes England, Scotland, Wales, and IRELAND. So Niall is from Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.194.87 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ??? I just can't Niall is from the Republic of Ireland not Northern Ireland -- big difference AdabowtheSecond (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Great Britain does not include Ireland, its includes Scotland, England and Wales..so just get it right from now on, we aint British Handsopened (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Handsopened and AdabowtheSecond are the most correct, politically. Following the Acts of Union 1800, in 1801 Ireland oficially became a part of the United Kingdom. In 1919, a War of Independence broke out, which resulted in partition. Currently, the United Kindgdom is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The people of those countries hold a British passport and are British. – Plarem (User talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Highest sales for a number two album and the DVD setting a U.S. chart record
I don't think these are necessary to be included in this article. DVD setting a US chart record for beating an album isn't something that is usually noted, because it's two different things. Who really keep track of which DVD beat an album sales record? Besides, it's already in the DVD article. And I don't know who keeps track of "highest sales for a number two album" either. I mean wow, really? Highest sales for a number two album? Who actually compare sales of all number-two albums? And even if you want to mention it, it's best in the album article. The section is already too long as it is, and it's just not necessary. Mentioning that the album tops the chart in x countries and peaked in number 1 or 2 in US/UK chart is enough and it's really what matters the most anyway.--  Krystaleen  15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * DVD; keeping track? its the first time in history I can add more refs about if you think its not notable enough.
 * Album; I agree with you on that, thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request by consultingcriminalcaroline, 20 of August 2012
Could someone please remove this line-They are often compared to south-korean boy band big bang, though big bang are far more talented, better looking and are far more sexier-from the first paragraph. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultingcriminalcaroline (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reverted by User:Fraggle81. Unclear if they saw the request. Dru of Id (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is weird
Did someone just edited the page, adding irrelevant stuff about Big Bang the boyband and then reverted themselves and declared it vandalism? Did that just happen?--  Krystaleen  13:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously laughing, at least it was reverted AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012
Looks like a new website has been launched to promote the new album http://www.takemehomealbum.com. There doesn't seem to be much on it at the moment though. Not sure what it is going to be. Paul zxz (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul zxz (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need to add it until there's more. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012
i dont think its fair to add that he's muslim to his page (request from IP: 75.142.20.205, previously added to section;"Disreputable sourcing used in uncited change 13 June 2012")


 * I have added your request to the bottom where new requests belong, why do you oppose against his religion being cited, very much part of personal life. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Filmography
Can someone add One Direction's appearance as guest mentors during the 'home visits' round of the fourth season of The X Factor (Australia) to the table please? Source. 114.77.226.195 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Oz   talk  22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012
Louis Tomlinson proposed to his girlfriend Eleanor Calder on August 8,2012

SapphireAsianTurtle (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source for this information. Striker force Talk  Review me! 05:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

== Split "Members" section of article to each having own wikipedia page. There is a discussion taking place about whether or not to split the "Members" section of this article to a new article entitled "List of One Direction band members" at Talk:List of One Direction band members.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "discussion" taking place. The appropriate course of action would have been to present your proposal, then act accordingly, based on consensus. The article created is not a "list", but a fork of content already existing. It would have been better to move forward with creating individual articles for each band member. For more information, see Manual of Style/Lists. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cinda, since you have asked me to "present [my] proposal", I am doing so now.

Proposal
Slipknot and Megadeth have articles dedicated to their lineup changes and artist histories. There are also over 3000 musician discography pages on Wikipedia that act similarly to this. Therefore, unless I am given a specific policy based reason for not doing so, I am going to rephrase the new title (as "One Direction band members") and place a split tag on the page for one week to discuss this matter.
 * Discussion
 * We need to address redundancy. You can find more information about the guideline pertaining to content forks here: WP:FORK. Note that there is no time frame here to be met. The criteria that we need to meet is consensus. Short of that, moving forward in the same manner as List of One Direction band members will likely provide the same result. There is no question that you are working in good faith. I'm not opposed to spinning out some information about the band members in a separate article. We just need to make sure that it is done in compliance with community standards. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that a band only needs such an article if their lineup has often changed over the years. As far as I know, One Direction hasn't had a member left or replaced yet so I don't think it's necessary at all.--  Krystaleen  03:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Recommendations
 * Split This article is now over 100 kB, so I propose splitting the "Members" section of this article to One Direction band members. LONG biographies of the members themselves do not usually go in an article about the band, but instead in articles about the people themselves.  The article One Direction band members can be redirected back to the "Members" section of this article at such time that all of the members have their own articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce The problem with this article is that it is a sprawling testament to fannishness. Why is the meeting of Styles's mother and stepfather relevant to an article about One Direction? Why are the names of Louis Tomlinson's half-sisters (complete with the genealogy of which parent the half comes through) relevant to an article about One Direction? Zayn Malik's tattoos? Horan's admiration for Justin Bieber? Reduce the material by 70% or so, and it will no longer seem oversized in relation to the rest of the article. Split it out, and we will start to find out the precise shapes of every mole on Payne's buttocks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce Agree with what Kww said above, the article's length should be reduced, as it contains too much stuff not notable and/or not necessary. The sentence wordings could be shortened too.--  Krystaleen  15:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce. Tattoos, moles, and butts? Sounds encyclopedic to me. (tic) I would recommend a short summary to include name, age, hometown, and contributions in the band for each member. This article needs some cleanup. At this point, it clearly fails the GA criteria. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think its a good idea. To Kww; Just because their teenagers citing their relationships and influences is considered fancruft, every BLP of a musician does it, removing Zayn's grandfather stuff is removable and since when is citing siblings not encyclopedic pretty much every BLP cites them. Of course Styles mother and stepfather meeting isn't relevant to the group's article it is relevant to Styles' biography and since his section is the only place to cite it, I have cited it. Moles and butts seriously? Bordering on cynicism. Krystaleen; feel free to re-sentence the way you see fit. Can you point me to GA criteria its failing, so I can improve Cindamuse AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:OSE. Most of our articles about musical groups and personalities are pretty bad. No reason to continue the trend.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * what the article looks like with the cutting Kww has suggested, it still looks horrifyingly awkward, the guideline about being notable outside the band is so stupid, I suggest we just cut entire section as looks and will always look horrifyingly awkward and it will always only appeal to fans and not the general public. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose— keep everything in the same article, a new page would be unnecessary content fork. The article needs reduction, not a spin-off. Till 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Members section completely, I'm honestly sick and tired of looking at the members section, its horrifyingly awkward, the size doesn't matter still looks horrifyingly awkward, it scares away general public, the article should only be about the group. the page with only names and birth dates much better AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it looks awkward at all, either with pics or without pics. I'm not sure how it would scare away the general public either, however I think it can be shortened to only a paragraph about their birth date, place, and musical background.--  Krystaleen  15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reduce There is an excessive amount of information here and creating separate articles for the members of One Direction would reduce the article size. However, individual members have not made significant contributions as philanthropists or within the music industry (dont panic - this doesn't mean a Boy band to solo career move). The content of these pages would be scarce and more than likely contain further irrelevant information. Have any members set up a record label, a side project, made an individual commitment to a cause or perhaps a fashion label? - Not that I'm aware of... If any one of these criteria or others were fulfilled then and only then in my opinion would give merit to this suggestion. Individual accomplishments would not be largely written about in the One Direction band Wikipedia page. The content should be placed in the individual members' pages. Threeperfectdays (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Split: I think this is a great opportunity for "Directioners" (fans of one Direction) who are experts of editing Wikipedia. If a "crazed fan" adds something unnecessary, then Directioners who are good at editing at Wikipedia can just either: re-word it and put an appropriate citing, expand more of that or even remove it! And they can be able to expand/edit/add things about them. (Remember, this is MY opinion, not yours!) 203.97.167.3 (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Split As people want to keep chopping out and loosing information then splitting would be the appropriate course of action to preserve the information. A short summary and link to new article would go in this article. Keith D (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Split: So bands can have their own article but One Direction can't? Split it! Plus if you find something that is "unnecessary" or "not right" or "not worded properly" to the article, you can just remove or re-word it you know... Streamerlovesmusic (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. One split band article doesn't necessarily justify another. Accelerometer T / C 03:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce It's ridiculous the amount of sheer pabulum under the section. Keep it short and sweet, guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.182.46 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce - The section is too long to be in the article, and I feel that it's too short to be on its own. Splitting the article will also encourage more fancruft (this, however, is a weak argument, since other editors can just get rid of it). Just slim it down to name, brief personal history, and role in the group. Accelerometer T / C 03:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Split: More and more media coverage is expected soon with growing popularity. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Template renamed
has been renamed
 * There is no need to change the article, because template redirects work fine. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

READ: Before requesting something on this talk page
People need to stop requesting for One Direction to get individual pages. Wikipedia has already clearly stated (Please Read WP:MUSICBIO)that members of a band (One Direction) are not to receive their own articles, unless they have done something OUTSIDE of the band of significance. Sorry, but THUS FAR no member has. The current section on the members is fine, for now. Maybe you should stop wasting your time, and ask the members to individually do something of great significance that would be Wikipedia-Article-worthy. We are not trying to insult you, "Directioners", it's the rules, and they need to be followed. --Kylestewart98 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Liam Payne
I am a huge fan of Liam's and I really want to get him a page on only him. He's so cute and so sweet, I really think he deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1liamfan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, according to Wikipedia guidelines he has to individual work like; feature on single or release a single (individually); which has to chart or he's involved in some charity, or he won some major award as an individual AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * so in harry's words; so basically they have to disband and release individual work - yep that's wikipedia's "guidelines" for you AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't have to disband. They just have to have individual work. Krystaleen (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When band members start releasing individual work it marks their upcoming split AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. There are many established groups and bands out there who are still active together even though they have individual projects. New Kids on the Block and OneRepublic come to mind.--  Krystaleen  08:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should members of One Direction have stand-alone biography articles?

 * 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.

Individual biography articles have previously been merged with the article about the One Direction boy band, though sub-sections that exist for each member are longer and better sourced than the bodies of many popular biography articles. Is the sourced material about the lives of Niall, Zayn, Liam, Harry and Louis, substantial enough to be encyclopaedic, or would creating separate articles be promoting unfortunate fancruft? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, they should. Why not? They're the most famous boy band at the moment, they are famous, each one of them should have their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.41.6 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think each of the boys need their own wiki page. They are all famous enough now and they deserve it. On their pages, you CAN include that they are part of the group but they have their own achievements too. Samina82497 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Samina


 * If the band itself is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, then I would presume its members are also notable enough for their own pages, and having glanced over the article, I would suggest that may well be a good idea, since the band's article should be a bio of the band, not each individual member's life. — GabeMc (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes i have been told that they do not deserve individual articles as they are notable as individuals --- if you see births from 1990 you will countless articles with less info, untrustworthy info, not sourced properly, and articles that are stubs, for example
 * Spencer Achtymichuk, Endogan Adili], Nik Adruce, Maria-Laura Aga, Alexander Agate, Sara Aghai, Nashla Aguilar does anybody know them No do they get mainstream coverage everyday No if i stand correctly in google news if you type harry styles you will get 150 articles from independent websites just about how he stepped in his new car.


 * another example the least popular member of the group Liam Payne has the lowest twitter statistics of group he gains 20,000 followers per day see his twitter statics a feat 99% of the people with individual articles of category births 1993 don't have this by far. And their is enough info in the members section for a individual page. I still have a copy of all 5 individual pages (on Word on my pc) before they were taken down again here is how one would look like based on info which is cited in members section. here is Styles page the only section in the page that is same as the others is the one direction section which is only a small brief section: early and personal, x factor time, influences all are different then the others, here is styles example the way the article is written is based on Coldplay's Chris Martin's article so here is one of them i added extra = to every section since it on the talk page AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is partially "fancruft" but that kind of falls away when your one of the most popular teens in the world AdabowtheSecond (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Not surprisingly, we actually have a guideline for this: WP:MUSICBIO, which states "...members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". I don't think any members of this group qualify.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment so Kww you're saying their less notable then the Krisztina Bárány, Claudia Barea, Stefania Barr, Denys Barvinko, Gabriel Basso, Luis Batioja, Thomas Batuello, Emery Bayisenge, Jack Beaumont, Annika Beck, Atsamaz Bekoyev, Adel Habib Beldi, Glenn Belezika, Brendyn Bell, Daniil Belotserkovskiy, Liudmila Belyakova, Martín Benítez, Nick Benson, Christoph Bertschy, Charlotte Best, Álvaro Betancourt, Shamika Bhide, Youssef Biaz, Bronte Bird, Maddison Bird, Sofia Biryukova, Marcus Björk, Katherine Bobak, Mark Boggan, Ruslan Bolov, Maksim Borisov, Jamie Borthwick, Samantha Boscarino, Eugenie Bouchard, Jean-Carl Boucher, Katie Bowen, Maddie Bowman, Cayden Boyd, Lucy Boynton, DeAndre Brackensick, Jessica Brando, Paul-André Brasseur, Samantha Bricio, Liam Broady, Ashley Brown (footballer), Corey Brown (footballer), Jason Brown (figure skater), Madeleine Budd, Marco Bueno, Romy Bühler, Claudiu Bumba, Paul Butcher (actor), Ludvig Byström
 * do you know anyone in this list as they all have individual pages and are in Category:1994 births the year Styles was born, this does not make sense AdabowtheSecond (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking through those examples, I see only people that have done work outside of their band or that are solo performers (i.e, the band article and the individual article are the same thing). If there are contrary examples, I'll happily take them through AFD for you. This isn't some kind of merit badge or award, it's a matter of not having articles that have enormous amounts of overlap. These individual members have nearly the same career and same discography.&mdash;Kww(talk) 10:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww accurately states our rule. Personally, I'm not sure it makes sense, but we have fairly consistently kept to it. Although this isn't my subject, the rule is so widely followed that even I know about it. I'd be very reluctant   to make an exception to one of the few rules about notability that is so generally accepted, and even more reluctant to propose a change in it. In any case, eventually some or all of the band members might well become notable enough in individual careers, or may become part of other groups. It's still early in their career.   DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * comment kww all i see are stubs of with no photos with no early,personal life ect. i see pages with no page reviews because no one visits them, with no mainstream coverage. Members have done things outside of the band Harry Styles in talks with model agency as individual model link and Zayn Malik individual charity work charity link
 * Neither of those examples would be considered independent of their status as One Direction members, nor is either of them worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. They are pretty good examples of the fannish material the guideline helps to prevent.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No per WP:MUSICBIO per Kww. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 03:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly?.... (on a per-member basis): I mean, of course it should follow WP:MUSICBIO &mdash; I'm not arguing against it &mdash; but I would argue for perhaps a separate article on Harry due to the coverage on his May-December romance (not to mention him being under 18 at the time). Beyond that.... Due to their popular status, the members are getting an insane amount of coverage as individuals (I guess right now it's Zayn's turn?) so on that basis member articles may pass WP:N.  I'm pretty sure, though, that it would get very fancruft-y very quickly.  Moreover, what would individual pages cover that the current members section does not? SKS (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right on that point: our current guidelines would tell us to evaluate this individually, per member, not once for the entire group.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:MUSICBIO. None appear to be notable outside of the context of their membership within this band. Their individual sections within the band article could probably use subheaders to improve readability, but the content already seems to be verging on cruftiness, so further expansion not called for yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - keep all in one article, according to WP:MUSICBIO, as none are notable, period, outside of the boy band. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support separate pages. The One Direction article is getting out of hand with the length due to the members' information etc. I mean I can't imagine how uncomfortable for a reader it would be to go through those five blocks of info. Plus all five appear to meet the GNG. Individual pages seems appropriate and more convenient not only for editors but readers from outside. Till 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if one of the members would play lets say an instrument (credited) in some elses album would receive their own individual article?? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That alone wouldn't do it, but it would certainly be a part of the discussion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * comment so kww you say only playing an instrument on some ones albums is not enough. However a band member of coldplay Guy Berryman as an individual page since 2007 and he has only done One said thing. Just goes to show how broken WP is when it comes to guidelines. Not to mention he has no mainstream coverage,his article is stubby, and know one knows his name now tell me i'm wrong AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops i meant Will Champion is the one with only said with thing with individual article since 2007AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that there are articles in existence that should be redirects, fix them. Nothing is stopping you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No per MUSICBIO. The main argument that I'm seeing thus far appears to be "If (x) exists, in my opinion a subject deemed to be less popular than (y), and (y) does not have an article of its own, then (y) must be allowed to have its own article." That doesn't fly, per OTHER, in my opinion. The fact that 150+ individual websites choose to carry a story about a member of the band and his car is irrelevant. Is that truly newsworthy or does it fall under the umbrella of "gossip" or tabloid journalism? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Striker force Talk  Review me! 04:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - obviously, some of them are among the most notable people born in the 1990s. If there is such a rule (no articles for band members not notable outside band), then the rule is stupid (unquestionably), makes no sense, and should be ignored as often as possible. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "some of them are among the most notable people born in the 1990s." Says whom? There is, in fact, such a rule in place. It is covered under MUSICBIO. -- Striker force Talk Review me! 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say it is said by common sense. Take a look at Category:1994 births and tell me honestly Harry Styles wouldn't be among the top 10 most notable people born that year. As for that rule, good for it that it exists. Now let's ignore it and maybe it'll go away. I am tired of stupid rules written by people who don't understand what they are doing, and which are destructive to Wikipedia. This is a perfect case. Ignore the rule. Pretend you never saw it. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No – I understand (from various above) that they may not be individually notable per MUSICBIO and although it's possible that they will appear prominently in the media as individuals in the near future, it is not certain. Until they begin to have individuals careers/appearances or suddenly become philanthropists, all that will be covered in the media (and anywhere for that matter) is gossip/fancruft. It has been interesting watching this article grow over the past few months, but when this RfC started I remember thinking how full of junk each members' biography was on the article (thanks to Till for helping out with that a bit). Adding such fan material to their biographies only downgrades the article's quality and focus on the group as a whole, making their actual music seem less important. (And it's not like they're bad singers when they're together, so that's unfortunate.) Therefore, I would be concerned that each of their individual articles would erupt into an indiscriminate collection of information, whereas the gossip on each can be controlled more easily if all are located solely on this article. So currently, as a fan, I respectively think "not yet". – Jonadin93 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No - If I stumbled across any articles on individual members, I would seriously consider nominating it to merge with One Direction. If it already happened, it was for a reason. Most of the content is gossip, when there is more substance, maybe. Per Jonadin93, not yet. Per Kww, no WP:MUSICBIO. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Grayfell are you referring to the example individual articles which are given below or the actual current One Direction section if the latter could you point out which sentences, thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was an awkward paragraph on my part. I was specifically referring to the members section of the current article. The example articles are much better formatted, but I still don't see anything that currently warrants individual articles. There is simply too much indiscriminate info in them. Most content in each section of the examples is trivial or redundant with the main article, and should be paired down to one or two sentences each, if that.Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

YES!!! They are all really sweet boys and are super cool people. If Justin Bieber can get a page, each member of One Direction should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.152.14 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think they should. They are the new British Invasion, and they are important to the history of music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace0508 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * YES - I'm sorry if this is an "otherstuffexists" argument, but Harry, Niall, Liam, Louis and Zayn are surely more notable than people like Jonny Buckland, Steve Kemp, Jez Williams, Kent Stax, Jay Mehler or even two of the members of JLS (Aston Merrygold and Marvin Humes)?

Also, look at how many times people searched Wikipedia last month for Harry (35,617 times), Niall (21,630 times), Liam (12,188 times), Louis (12,992 times) and Zayn (37,286 times). And this month Harry's got over 4,000 searches already, and the other four have in excess of 1,000.

If these two things don't say notable I don't know what does/will. Unreal7 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think all those pages you linked are notable. Including the other JLS members' page. Maybe we should propose them for deletion or merger.-- Krystaleen 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, until they have notable individual work outside of the group they don't need to have individual pages. All their work are covered in the main group page anyway.-- Krystaleen 04:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--99.113.53.66 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Yes they should have their own pages,with more pics :)--99.113.53.66 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)--99.113.53.66 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Bold text

Malik
A trustworthy source has been found for Malik's middle and birth name @Ancestry.com.
 * It is him as his mother maiden name: Brannan (her maiden name is already sourced on his bio) is given under his birth name.
 * The birth index is in his birth year.
 * Everyone has been speculating and saying Jawaad or Javadd so searched under Zain Javadd Malik with extra his mother's maiden name: Brannan it can't be anyone else and also it states he was born in Yorkshire which Bradford is located in.
 * Here is the source: Zain Javadd Malik at Ancestry.uk
 * You can click for more info on him (birth place and stuff) but then you pay money via credit card.

So his real official birth name is : Zain Javadd Malik based on the UK archive and not the untrustworty sites like: twitter,facebook,tumblr, and fanwebsites.

Styles
Here is Styles data with his mothers maiden name given, he was born in Worcestershire like the Capital FM source stated: Harry Edward Styles at Ancestry.com

His name birth name: Harry Edward Styles --- no Harold after all. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012
Under Take Me Home and world tour (2012), on the end of the first paragraph, the song, "Live While We're Young" came out, today, on YouTube, 9/20/12 Thanks.

Leenie212 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its radio or music video premiere isn't significant enough for main article, its release and commercial performance is, for further information see LWWY, AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this stale request as answered. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rock - Discuss
One Direction are rock!? c'mon you can't be serious, if One Direction are rock then Led Zeppelin is death metal. This dubious addition needs to be removed I call the big one bitey (talk) 1:26, October 6 (UTC)
 * There's not a single source that labels them as rock. AllMusic described them as Dance pop, Teen pop and simply pop. It'll be hilarious when people will come across their wikipedia article & find that there's rock in the infobox.  Bloomgloom   talk   07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rock is utilized in their music if any of you would actually see the sources in musical style but I understand that people can't live with the fact that rock is a genre one direction helm over, so changed to pop sub genres AdabowtheSecond (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And bloomgloom rock/pop is cited at all music ref -__- AdabowtheSecond (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2012
Please change "One Direction are an English boy band" to "One Direction are an English/Irish boy band" because one band member (Niall Horan) is Irish. Saying that One Direction are English is false.

86.42.216.115 (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * . Can you provide a source for this information first? gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is so bloated
Too many non-notable material, too many quotes, this is not a news article. Krystaleen (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift's article is way more bloated; i kind of like the idea that there is as much information about a time period AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I Have trimmed a bit AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because there's an article out there that's more bloated doesn't mean this one has to be bloated too ;) A lot of things don't need to be mentioned here. Too many quotes, and stuff like "screaming fans lined up behind barriers" is not that important. I imagine the screaming fans are always following them anyway. Krystaleen (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * your right i got inspired to add screaming fans by The Beatles article where screaming fans are continually cited "The Beatles left the United Kingdom on 7 February 1964, with an estimated four thousand fans gathered at Heathrow, waving and screaming as the aircraft took off.[79] At New York's John F. Kennedy Airport they were greeted by another uproarious crowd estimated at three thousand" AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is like a fan page, not a encyclopedic article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.1.148 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody male, or female over 13, gives a toss about this 'band'. The WP article is typical of articles written by fans of similar manufactured acts. --Ef80 (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So that is why the article has been assessed twice to be a WP:Good article. This talk page is not to discuss the band itself but how to make it better so please keep your opinions to yourself unless it's actually about improving the article. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful! Looks like you offended their butt buddy. Good thing you're not a 'fan', Adabow… MiracleMat (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, again this page talk not to discuss whether I'm a fan (which I am :O) or if one direction members/ I enjoy anal sex. Keep it about the article... WP:NOTAFORUM. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 October 2012
The are NOT k-pop at all. Wrong genre completely. Please take that out.

Sarahedee (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about supplying a reliable source and list what genres should be included? Jim1138 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed it is completely RIDICULES that editors didn't remove it prior (17 hours). K-pop is Korean pop that editors didn't remove it is sheer retardation or ignorance, how do they ever want Wikipedia to be taken seriously. Sources for One Direction's genres can be found in One Direction section. Still reeling in shock 17 hours k-pop was cited I can't even. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One Direction's obviously not a K-pop band; closing as Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, they're a boy group not a boy band. Although Niall plays the guitar, they don't - as of yet - play their own instruments on any albums or singles they have released, nor in any tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenneighD (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Boy band" is correct if you look at its article. ~ Wikipedian192 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Is" vs. "Are"
Shouldn't we say One Direction is a British-Irish boy band? ~ Wikipedian192 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article uses British English. In the UK, bands are plural. Unreal7 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Liam Payne Relationship
Liam Payne and Danielle Peazer are no longer dating. It has been proved that she moved out of the house that they shared, and that she wants to go separate ways. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/liam-payne-danielle-peazer-breakup_n_1916243.html http://www.starpulse.com/news/Rachel_Ho/2012/09/26/liam_payne_and_danielle_peazer_its_ove http://tellymix.co.uk/reality-tv/the-x-factor/107642-one-direction-liam-payne-danielle-peazer-split-danielle-moves-out.html I think that they should change that, or at least that Danielle is no longer living with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyEberhart (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as they do not confirm they have broken up (actual statements), I don't think it should be adjusted, now its really just speculation, which an encyclopedia isn't. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Liam Payne has now confirmed his single status. http://popdust.com/2012/10/03/one-direction-liam-payne-breakup-danielle-peazer-confirmed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.244.164 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Liam confirmed he's single on the Le Grand Journal interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.49.78 (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Danielle and liam broke up

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accountingclass3ab (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Liam confirmed that he's single on the Le Grand Journal interview. Liam and Danielle are no longer together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.49.78 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved the latter four comments to this section from section "Liam Payne" which is about something else to keep the talk page from being to scrambled, I have removed all relationships, because the section needed trimming and it serves for no significance really. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

New Band Member
​ Drew Brees was also added as a member of One Direction for a short period of time in exchange for a can of Pepsi. althought it was strictly for the reason of the commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfy8UYRhmpA <--- Evidence.

98.220.13.92 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Tingle Amatangelo
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

'British-Irish' or Anglo-Irish?
Why is the band described as british Irish? Given there's no members in the band from Wales or Scotland surely it's more accurate to call the band Anglo-Irish? What are people's thoughts? --Richardeast (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with "English-Irish". Anglo-Irish usually means something different entirely... — Jon C.  ॐ  15:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In every report/ news article they're described as british not english, so thats why, they represent the UK not England AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * English - Irish, sounds a better anyhow Jon! Adabow - saying someone is from England automatically means they're british/ european/ northern hemisphere/ earthling. But detailing someone's country rather than simply saying they're 'british' makes the article more accurate and makes for a better encyclopedia (thus why this is done on almost all musicians or actors). --Richardeast (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The country is the UK, so they are referred to as British. Although WP:Consensus decides. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that doesn't hold true on Wikipedia. Most people are referred to as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. Very few are "British". — Jon C.  ॐ  08:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just British or English without the Irish? I mean the band itself if from England, although there is a member from Ireland. We do this for other bands.--  Krystaleen  08:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See U2, for example – The Edge and Adam Clayton are English, but they're an "Irish band" because they formed in Dublin. — Jon C.  ॐ  08:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate where someone is born details their nationality this is not factually accurate, English-Irish is perfectly accessible. That the band were formed and based in England, does not make them "English". AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AdabowtheSecond, can you reword your sentence? I don't think I follow.--  Krystaleen  16:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Enlish-Irish"? Were they based, formed or originally gained notibility from Ireland? No, no and no. Were they form in the UK, based in the UK and gained notability originally in the UK, yes, yes and yes. British, or English, would be fine, individuals nationality do not come into it in a case where individual was not notible before they joined the band or where the person has put forward their nationality or background as an influence on the band, but the latter in limited situations.. Murry1975 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)add
 * It should just be "British" per the overwhleming description in reliable sources: . Rangoon11 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Krystaleen what's wrong with sentencing, I think my opinion is clear. Murry I see your point however think a Chinese group all born in China, but they were formed and gained notability in France, do you still cite them as a French band? Would be kind of funny. About British - English, I have said this before in every article their described as British never English AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but I don't understand this sentence: "This is not appropriate where someone is born details their nationality this is not factually accurate, English-Irish is perfectly accessible."--  Krystaleen  17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't think it's appropriate to cite them solely as British or an English band as one member carries an Irish nationality, therefore I don't think it's factually accurate to describe them solely as British. Furthermore, I do not think it's problematic to describe them as British-Irish therefore it is accessible. Clearer?
 * A band of Chinese being formed in France? Dont start exaggerating to try to push your point. One out of five is Irish, was not notable before the band, not notable for anything outside the band, why, in your opinion do you think that he should set what the band are described as? It was a British TV show, the band were formed and based in the UK, WP:undue would indicate that British-Irish would give weight to the minority. Murry1975 (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I prefer British-Irish I see your point. English or British then? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the band wasn't actually formed by the members themselves but by the TV programme they were contestants in. The band is not their creation as such, but that of a British TV show. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're all british I assume hence the reason you don't really care. Like you try to have everything to yourselves. It would kill you to put in that one of the most liked band members is Irish ha.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.115 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The X-Factor show traveled to Ireland as a part of the show for auditions. This was advertised as including Irish singers into the show. Niall was picked from this audition along with many other contestants from Ireland. Because of the specific inclusion of Ireland in the show, the band should be classified as British-Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgephart (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The X Factor is still a British programme, regardless. – anemone projectors – 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ONE member is IRISH and the others BRITISH...Is NOT rocket science.....IRISH are NOT BRITISH...!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.39.41 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling One Direction an English Band
Can One Direction be termed an English and Irish band as one of the five members (Niall Horan) is an Irish citizen by birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daraghmcd (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your thoughts; see discussion above AdabowtheSecond (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm Irish and it's highly offensive to class them all as English. They're an English/Irish band why make such a big deal out of it just because they're based out of England? Someone change it back please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurakillabean (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not classing them all as English, it's classing the band as a unit as English, having formed in England. If you look at Niall's section it's quite clear he's from the Republic of Ireland. — Jon C.  ॐ  15:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he would still be pretty annoyed if he read this and "One Direction are an English boy band". Unreal7 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are U2 an Irish-English band? — Jon C.  ॐ  09:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know how Niall Horan thinks? He might not care. But I'm not going to say I'm sure. He might be pretty annoyed that people he doesn't know are claiming to know his mind though. They are an English band with an Irish member, just like U2 are an Irish band with English members. – anemone projectors – 09:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should do the same to The Wanted?--  Krystaleen  10:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, The Wanted should be changed, too, if anyone wanted to tackle it. — Jon C.  ॐ  11:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. This astonishing hypocrisy has to stop...--Τασουλα (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So many on here seem NOT to know the difference BETWEEN English and British.......British relates to the WHOLE UK, including Northern Ireland...The IRISH REPUBLIC is NOT BRITISH...Is Alaska Canadian? NO!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.39.41 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Band Members
Why don't any of the band members have their own Wikipedia page? And is there a plan to separate each one of the band members into their own page? This article seems bloated for such a young (shy of 2 year old) band. TekBoi &#91;Ali Kilinc&#93; (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, none of the band members meet the notability guideline.--  Krystaleen  08:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may ask, what about Liam Payne? He has a history that precedes the formation of One Direction such as his time on the X Factor in 2008. Blueberry01120 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What history does Liam Payne have may I ask? If he had any history that didn't have to do with One Direction, he'd already have his own page. None of them exist outside of One Direction, at least, not yet. TekBoi &#91;Ali Kilinc&#93; (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He did audition for The X Factor before, but that won't give him extra notability, because he didn't make live shows and didn't secure any recording contracts, hence he auditioned again. – anemone projectors – 12:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Own Pages
I was very disappointed to see that each member of One Direction did not have their own page. I think there should be the main page for One Direction and then each member should have their own page. I know that many children look to this website when they would like to know something. If a child was to do a report on her favorite pop star and it was Harry Styles, she has nothing more to go on than a tiny paragraph. Wikipedia is also losing favor with teachers because its lack of information. I believe that to regain a better reputation Wikipedia needs to put more information about people. Wikipedia can start here. It also seemed a bit odd that they would name Niall Horan's brother, but leave out Louis's half-sister’s names. I also find it odd that they do not have their own page because there are many very interesting facts about them that people would very much like to know. And if you say these facts are not needed just take a look at what they wrote on Zayn Malik's little paragraph. They wrote what he wrote on twitter. Surely that is not needed. I also read on a similar topic, in an answer to a question, this: '''What history does Liam Payne have may I ask? If he had any history that didn't have to do with One Direction, he'd already have his own page. None of them exist outside of One Direction, at least, not yet. TekBoi [Ali Kilinc] (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)''' While they may not have any history outside of One Direction yet I think it would be necessary to include facts about their life in One Direction now. Also I have heard that Louis Tomlinson was dating Eleanor Calder. I think that is a necessary to include this. And even if they broke up you just have to add that they broke up. On the page it says nothing about being on various TV shows or being interviewed. I also find it horrifying that their albums, Up All Night and Take Me Home, have their own page, but the people who sing on the album don’t. I am sure many people agree with me. If you could please have this fixed it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.87.50 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Regards  Adabow the  Second  00:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm kind of the main contributor to this article. I concur that they should have their own individual articles, however, this violates Wikipedia's guideline WP:MUSICBIO, which states members of a notable group do not receive individual articles unless they have done notable stuff as individuals.
 * We did cite Tomlinson's 5 half sisters's names at a point of time, however, an administrator denounced it as "Why are the names of Louis Tomlinson's half-sisters (complete with the genealogy of which parent the half comes through) relevant to an article about One Direction?" and so it was removed.
 * Can you cite more information on the members early lives that isn't cited with reliable sources?
 * We cited all the members' relationships prior it was removed to reduce the article as an editor felt it was bordering on "a sprawling testament to fannishness".
 * You want to include who the members dated but you don't want the article to state Zayn Malik's religion which is much more significant than a relationship especially at their age.
 * Why would you make the article bloated with non-notable mundane interviews who cares? This is an encyclopedia not a fan site.

It is perfect how it is. They are not notable outside of the group. At the moment at least.  Statυs ( talk ) 23:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty absurd. They are among some of the most notable people in their age groups. A google search for "Harry Styles" receives over 45 million matches. How could such a person not be notable enough for a Wikipedia biography? All of the members of Fun and Maroon 5 have their own pages, and other than Adam Levine, they are absurdly less notable, combined, than a single One Direction member (I'm not kidding around on that one - add up the non-Levine Google results and you wouldn't get 10 million matches). Every last top 12 finalist on American Idol, Season 4 has their own page, but not these guys? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about popularity, it's about notability. Read WP:MUSICBIO for details, basically a musician shouldn't have their own article until they've done notable stuff as individuals, not as a member of a band. None of the One Direction members has done any stuff individually so far, therefore they are not qualified.--  Krystaleen  17:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is absurd not too have entries on people who are so frequently - individually - discussed in the media - this isn't "notable for a single event". What have the members of Fun and Maroon 5 accomplished outside of their bands? What did most of those American Idol contestants accomplish outside of the top 12? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of them have been members of other bands and some have solo works, if you find some who have not done anything outside of their respective bands please nominate them for deletion.--  Krystaleen  18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if those other people aren't notable, saying those articles exist isn't a reason to have articles for these people. They've done nothing individually - Heat magazine even said so in their "under 30s" rich list - they were listed as a single entity for this reason. – anemone projectors – 18:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)