Jump to content

Talk:Twice/Archive 2

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

Created Chaeyoung page

Hello, I saw Chaeyoung has no page yet and it's a shame that she looks kinda underrated. So if you don't mind, would you give me permission to create one for her? Thanks in advance. Sonigun7 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure ClaireFajardo0601 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Her notability outside group should be established first, need more references/sourcing work. Please see discussion on her draft talk page, consensus is that her own article is not ready yet. --Lord Yeager (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of bands

Are they really just a South Korean band and not a Japanese one? Are we basing it on the creator or band members, other bands (EXO, One Direction) seem to based on band members. Are they not promoted in Japan enough or something? Xxxcatladyxx (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

One is from Taiwan but they do actually sing in Japanese and rest are Korean & Japanese Xxxcatladyxx (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

They are a K-Pop group so are essentially a South korean band which is pretty self explanatory they occasionally promote and release music in japan but are not usually acknowledged as such so I don't see why that should change Marmala678 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Should the fact that they are the best-selling Korean girl group of all time be included in the lead section? The fact is mentioned in #2018–2019: Continued success and concert tours subsection and i think it's a notable achievement. -- Lord Yeager (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely should @Lord Yeager:. I'd support you adding this. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Main image

By skimming through recent edits, I noticed the more or less only edit made by an IP that wasn't reverted (for obvious reasons) is a change of the representative infobox image. Personally I found the previous image to be better, because it showed their faces large and therefore clearly recognizable, while the new image is a total view which is also kinda nice, but somewhat blurred thus rendering the faces quite artefacted. If it's regarded to be ok, it's ok. Just wanted to make sure it didn't just slip through. --WPmurphy (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. The other image was too blurry. The current image is probably in need of updating, but it'll do for the time being. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't agree this is fancruft

Pinging @Alexanderlee:, but also speaking to people more generally. I don't agree with this revert. I don't agree that mentioning that Twice fans are known as Once constitutes fancruft. From an encyclopedic point of view, if someone were to be interested in learning about or studying Twice, knowing the term 'Once' is of pretty high value.

I'm speaking about the way K-pop pages are edited more generally here. But I think WP:FANCRUFT is being overused by many many people, who may not have read the full of policy. Fancruft policy applies to "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans". I don't think anything about my edit there was only for 'a small population of enthusiastic fans'. The fact that a wide range of reliable sources have mentioned "Once" should be an indicator that the subject matter isn't some obscure reference for diehard fans. Moreover, the full policy makes it clear that Fancruft mainly applies to fictional works. I really don't think my edit could be described as some obscure reference I've thrown in, it's a basic fact and the knowledge of the term 'once' is clearly not limited to diehard fans.

I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, but people often apply such incredibly high standards to K-Pop pages such that anything that doesn't directly relate to High Politics will be called fancruft. If you read the full fancruft policy, to me it's quite clear that its purpose is to stop stupid stuff like talking about largely WP:INUNIVERSE stuff like whether Rey's lightsaber is stronger than Kylo Ren's, or whether Goku's fighting style is more effective than Vegeta's...etc.

The majority of that policy seems dedicated to fictional works too. It seems very obvious that its purpose is to stop a discussion of why one character was skilled enough to defeat another character on page 300 of some fantasy novel, which provides no valid information to someone who is not planning to read the novel.

I'm not saying that the fancruft policy only applies to fictional works (though it appears to be written largely for that purpose). What I am saying that is that WP:FAN is often applied way too frequently. There's a big difference between fancruft and 'something that is of interest to fans'. If fancruft is interpreted to mean 'anything that is of interest to fans'....well then....literally every music page is 100% fancruft, because every detail is 'of interest to fans'. These are k-pop pages so obviously they're not going to be full of discussions of dry economics and politics. Yes, they shouldn't be full of obscure in-knowledge for diehard fans. But they do need to provide information about their subject matter. If people aren't interested in the subject matter, then they wouldn't be reading in the first place. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this anything but fancruft? Outside of the fan group, who is going to really care what their fans are called? Does not including this information harm the article? No, it doesn't. It's trivial information that only the fans would really care about. Just how you don't see it mentioned what Justin Bieber's fans are called, nor One Direction's, Little Mix, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift to name a few. Even BTS' article only mentions their fans' name because they were ranked 'Top Rank Sustainable Global group'. From an encyclopaedic view, the fans are not what this article is about, nor is a fandom name of any real value to the article. Pinging a few other editors, including a few who have recently edited the article, to bring more attention to the thread and hear (read?) their opinions. @Abdotorg, Explicit, Evaders99, Drmies, DanielleTH, and WPmurphy: Alex (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"knowing the term 'Once' is of pretty high value"--not unless reliable sources say it's of high value, and by "reliable sources" I don't meant the typical Naver or AllKPop or whatever. It's just another factoid, and really what it is is another marketing ploy that is merely repeated in Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Alex. Knowing the artist's fandom name is trivial and fancruft unless there is of significant value, like the BTS example or an album named after the fandom. Heolkpop (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Individual fan clubs are basically only important to the Kpop fandom. Every kpop group has them - just has they have fan color, fan chants, and fan glow sticks. They are non-notable to the uninterested readers. Evaders99 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find knowing the name of the fandom rather valueless, unless the fandom is notable enough to justify its own article (even if it doesn't necessarily have one. Though it does have its own article, think brony.) Truthfully though, I'm pretty neutral about its addition, as long it's just a mention, though simultaneously I don't think anything is lost by its exclusion. I personally like to apply a "why" to any additions... sure, knowing the production of an album or the endorsement deals a celebrity gets isn't something most readers will care about, but if it's an article discussing a career or a work of art, the high points of that career and the creation of that art is important for an informational article. It's elaborating on the topic. A fandom name doesn't really do this, does it? Twice has fans (which is obvious given that they have high sales) and their fans have thing they call themselves. What does that really have to do with Twice's broader career as musicians and celebrities? In terms of other articles, FAs like Lady Gaga do mention the fandom name (Little Monsters), while Taylor Swift does not mention the term "swifties", so it seems to be a case-by-case thing. The reason for the inclusion on Gaga's page seems to be the fact that she's branded the term and utilized it in things like marketing and merchandise, though.

Your initial post was more about the use of WP:FAN in K-pop articles rather than this particular addition, Apples&Manzanas. While I do think that discussion is worth having, we're discussing two separate ideas here... putting "Once" in the article and then what is(n't) fancruft. I think it might be worthwhile to hold off the latter discussion until the former concludes. I would appreciate a little bit of elaboration regarding what you feel is specifically gained by adding the term "Once", if you're willing to share. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 23:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not discussing two separate ideas here. My edit was deleted on the grounds that it was fancruft, if it is to be deleted on those grounds then someone actually needs to substantiate why it constitutes fancruft with respect to the policy and with respect to what i said. Commenters above are making the argument that it's not necessary information, well fine, but that doesn't make it fancruft. You can delete the information then, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted on the grounds of it being fancruft. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Further addendum: And to answer this question, "Outside of the fan group, who is going to really care what their fans are called?" My answer would be anyone interested in learning about Twice, anyone wishing to do research on Twice. Moreover, you could also use that line of argument to delete any piece of material, 'Outside of fans of Justin Bieber, who REALLY CARES about [insert sentence of the article here].' Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment to further addendum: no, what you are suggesting is that every single statement is of the same value. That is simply not true. Next thing is you're arguing we should re-introduce blood types and favorite colors. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No - i never suggested that. What i was doing was addressing the only argument given as to why it constitutes fancruft. Also, not a fair analogy. A wide range of reliable sources have felt it necessary to explain the term 'Once', not limited to the citations present in the article. It would be hard to understand Twice's interviews or their success in the industry without knowing that term. And in any case, youre simply arguing that the material isnt necessary, I already addressed this earlier...you can delete the material if you feel it isn't necessary, but that doesn't make it fancruft. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Discography section suggestions

Hello, for some time I've had a bit of a gripe with the Twice article, specifically the discography section. Currently, the discography section lists their three studio albums. I've done a bit of research, and I've found that the relevant Wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section) are as follows: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article." and also "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." Now, I think it's important to note the words most cases and generally in these guidelines. In most cases, it makes sense to only list studio albums on an artist's wikipedia page, as they are considered an artist's "major works." Many artists only release EPs for the sake of releasing a single, remixes, B sides, etc. However, I think Twice sort of a special case. I would argue that the EPs (often officially called "mini albums") released by Twice are part of their core catalogue, and thus should be considered their "major works." If you look at the Twice discography article, you can see that many of their EPs actually sold more copies than their studio albums, which to me indicates that they are just as relevant to their career as the studio albums. With the amount of other information listed in the Twice article, such as their complete filmography, I think that listing the Korean and Japanese EPs would be entirely acceptable. Let me know what you think. InredibleMrH (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

I want to edit this because I love twice and I'm responsible for it. Mxlkysanaxxx (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Supports cite the primary topic guidelines (and do not go against WP:NWFCTM, although the OP trended in that direction, as did several of the opposes). The opposes include only two with policy or guidelines support, WP:ASTONISH. "twice" is a common English word, but there's no encyclopedia article on that word, since this isn't a dictionary, but the point that there may be some readers who are astonished to land at the group is taken. Even so, the policy and guidelines arguments below below go to support. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

– Although "Twice" refer for multiple meaning, but when anyone think for this word, they will think for this group first. Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 15:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: the name Twice titles a dab page with several entries and so must also be renamed to make way for the initial page move. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The view counts for the dab page are an interesting point that kind of cuts both ways. The fact that it gets 10 times the views of the next highest non-kpop article suggests that most users are not continuing on to one of those other article from the dab, but the fact that the group gets 50 times the views of the dab page means that nearly all users looking for the group article get there without stumbling into the dab. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's absolutely true. But it's true of virtually every similar move request. Experiments with redirects show, with rare exceptions, that over 95% of readers get to the article they want on the first try no matter what we title our articles. That's because most readers come in through external links (Google is very good at figuring out primary topics) or WP's internal search engine or wikilinks. These move requests affect only the minority (2% in this case) who wind up on a dab page unnecessarily. This move would save those ~85 daily readers from having to search through the dab page and clicking on what they really want. Station1 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Twice may refer to:
Need we go on? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if you've found an article that gets more than a tiny trickle of views per day. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Views are a major criterion in determining a primary topic, but not the only criterion. Views can be overruled when a word is so common that it would be outright astonishing to all involved that it would point to a certain niche group. When the name is uncommon, that is another story entirely.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, In this case Twice as an English word has too many meanings. The first thing I think of when I hear Twice is a multiplication, 2 times, not this girl group and I'm very interested in kpop. Anyone looking for this group will understand that Twice (group) is what they are looking for so I see no reason to move and might cause difficulties for other people, the disambig page is there for a reason. Even if this is the most viewed page using "Twice", this is probably due to a influx of people interested in kpop, while the overal worldwide general public may know nothing of them. Background on why the (group) part of the title exists in the first place can be found here: Talk:4L_(group)#Requested_move_29_November_2018. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on its face as ludicrous Red Slash 05:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although the Kpop group Twice gets many more views than the other pages, the word "twice" is still a fairly generic English word and has too many other topics to warrant the group to hold the default title. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Overwhelming primary topic that dwarfs all the other topics put together. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The primary topic would be the word twice however there is no article for that and no one is going to look it up exactly,the group would be the second, K-Pop Is rather big at the moment worldwide bigger than all the remaining topics. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. 95% of pageviews for encyclopedic topics called "Twice" is a huge amount. No other topic with more significance. Sending our readers to a disambiguation page when we know the clear primary topic is a disservice to them. "Sounding generic" "what I think of" or "being a word" are not criteria for deciding a primarytopic. Usage and significance among encyclopedic topics are. Dohn joe (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support clear primary topic here. Alex (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ASTONISH Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails to meet primary topic guidelines and WP:ASTONISH. -- Netoholic @ 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to support contention that when people think of twice they think of this band. WP:R#ASTONISH tells us not to astonish readers. A very small percentage of the world listens to K pop, an even smaller percentage knows about this band. Twice is a common and typical word, and mostly refers to something that is not this band. Redirecting Twice here will, well, astonish people. Having twice go to a dap page will not disadvantage anyone in any real way. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:NWFCTM. WPmurphy (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. when anyone think for this word, they will think for this group first. What absolute rubbish. This group certainly isn't what I think of when I hear the word "Twice"! Frankly, anyone who does is likely not a native speaker of English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Necrothesp. The word "twice" has more long-term significance than a girl group. --Ab207 (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOPRIMARY here. See also WP:NWFCTM - the pop group clearly comes first to the nominator's mind, but not everyone else's.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements in Filmography section

Hi! I just recently inserted all the decent references I could find for several of the group's reality shows listed in the Filmography section. If there's anyone who can get proper news articles/anything decent as references for the other shows, that'd be great. Thanks! JTan0922 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

I would suggest to use a .jpg format image for infobox rather than a .png; Although .jpg takes more time to load, the quality is better. -ink&fables «talk» 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: The current one is good but I agree with you. However, it won't be easy to take a photo of them during the ongoing pandemic. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Do not use screenshot images from YouTube, the lead image should always be the best image of the subject and not the latest image. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

Change the picture please the current picture is 2018 and this

File:Twice 210615.png with HD quality this picture was uploaded and captured in year 2021 and uploaded by some user.

Format : PNG / HD

Is too good if Wikipedia change their image policy cause jpg too low than PNG

130.105.160.194 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Subgroups and solo endeavors section

A section like this shouldn't appear on the group's article, but on the articles related to the individual member, not the group. It should be removed and rewritten. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy @Princess Faye Solo endeavors do exists in other articles including GA ones, in case your haven't seen it, regardless that has removed approximately 4 hours later on that same day without discussion and/or replies to above. However, that isn't my main concerns, as that section (currently named "Subgroups"; previously named "Subgroups and solo endeavors), doesn't really make any sense to me, given that Twice officially doesn't has any subgroups and/or sub-units, either did I saw any news published directly or indirectly by JYP Entertainment confirming the existence of subgroups and/or sub-units, the only thing I know of such is fans calling it as such and also certain medias coining it as such with scare quotes. Furthermore, what is the context for the 1st paragraph existing in subgroups section, as it doesn't seem related to subgroups at all but more like few members were featured in a reality series. Thoughts? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: I don't think consensus is needed to delete the information I removed in this revision. The information should be posted on Nayeon's wikipedia page, and not on the Twice page because the information is not related to Twice. And this also happened in the Blackpink article, informations that is not related to the subject I think needs to be removed. —Princess Faye (my talk) 10:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Princess Faye That isn't my main concerns anyway as mentioned above, since it has been removed so be it, I'm just giving my 5 cents that such contents exists in other articles of including GA-class ones long (approximately 2016 and even older) before it existed in this article with Nayeon solo debut or on Blackpink article with Jennie/Rose/Lisa solo debut which may seem like "alien/no mans land" content to your. My main concerns is pertaining to the remaining subgroups section and also the out of context 1st paragraph of that section. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
My proposal would be since there were never any confirmed sub-groups or sub-units then the information should just be removed. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Btspurplegalaxy Yes, I support the removal if there isn't any opposition since there were not any confirmed subgroups and/or sub-units, I didn't removed it because I wanted to confirm that there isn't any news on such that I missed out personally which I doubt there is. Would also like to point out that the same subunits thingy was also mentioned in the notes of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3#Track listing hence I think it should also be removed from there. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and proceed with it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done: removed for Twice and Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Member timelines too complicated

The member timelines are too complicated. It should not list albums or major singles like that. If any of the members went on a sizable hiatus to the point they were not considered part of the group any longer then you can put gaps in the timeline. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's more the coloring that's bothering me. The vertical album colors are close to the horizontal member active bars. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the timeline are fine however I don't understand why Jihyo's leader position need to be highlighted, also, maybe there could be a member timeline and a release timeline? matt. (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

TWICE 11TH MINI ALBUM "BETWEEN 1&2"TWICE 11TH MINI ALBUM "BETWEEN 1&2"

Is it too early to make a draft for the album(TWICE 11TH MINI ALBUM"BETWEEN 1&2" ) and adding it into the page? and is there a draft for it already, just want to make sure there isn't already one matt. (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Magmamatt Nope not too early, that's the purpose of draftspace. Draft:Between 1&2 currently doesn't exists as of this comment hence if you wish to, you can start the draft. Alternatively, if you dislike draftspace and its "politics" bs, you can use your personal sandbox and move to mainspace once meeting WP:NALBUM instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

To add twice’s new album release, between 1&2 2406:3003:2060:4575:CCCD:D9F3:BB19:4ACD (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Already mentioned in Career section. However, we don't list EP under Discography section of this article in which Between 1&2 is. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

42 million worldwide sales

Based on Gaon's, Oricon's, and Billboard's data, Twice has now sold over 42 million records worldwide. Why can't we declare them as sales? Kenquenito (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

"became dance crazes and viral memes imitated by many celebrities" - no source, citation needed Kedrius (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sourced in lead section per WP:LEADREF however same exact sentence already sourced in Twice#Public image and reception. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twice/Archive_2&oldid=1247935664"