Talk:Lovelyz

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

Seo Ji-soo contversy section[edit]

This consisted largely of rumour and conjecture without any substantial allegations. They involved serious WP:BLP issues that should not be reintroduced unless the entire episode has some reliable sources. Karst (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lovelyz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

As these (diff) are largely promotional, they need to have solid, reliable sources that indicate their notability before they can be included. Please discuss them here and avoid edit-warring and let's reach consensus. Informing the two parties: @Firefoxoh: and @Dr.K.:; asking two seasoned K-pop editors for their opinion @TerryAlex: and @Random86:. Karst (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Karst:, I apologise for the edit-warring happened in Lovelyz page. I have already deleted the said sentence by @Dr.K.: which he found it promotional. I am all open to opinions by seasoned K-pop editors. Warm regards, firefoxoh (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Karst: Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion. I agree completely with you. Only if they are supported by reliable sources independent of the artists and the sponsors can or should be included so that independent notability is established, as you very correctly stated. What is more, these sections are inherently promotional and read like advertising leaflets for the sponsors. Dr. K. 16:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I have stated my opinion about this issue on a couple of occasions. For example, here. I cannot see any encyclopedic values to simply list out a bunch of endorsements on Wikipedia. Any important notability should be established through good prose with good sources.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lovelyz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

snowflakes91[edit]

You're a sone right! Please stop erasing the music programs wins of lovelyz... WoollimStan18 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake91[edit]

Stop it!!! Don't erase it!!! Mind your own business!!! WoollimStan18 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly chart positions are not awards of any kind, do not plague this article with it just because other articles are plagued as well. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lovelyz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To users who undo this document (disbanded or not)[edit]

First, before starting the discussion, please read this discussion between me and User:Paper9oll. I explained the reason why Lovelyz is not in disbandment by providing a reliable source. Then, this user accepted my editing, saying

@Special:Contributions/121.133.40.84 Upon quite a few hours of intensive, searching around, it does seem that the term "disband" is coined by the news media themselves rather than Woollim Entertainment. I have make changes to the article, but no guarantee, it won't get reverted, I have left a note in the edit summary to request the reverting editor (whoever it is) to open discussion on Talk:Lovelyz instead to discuss further. In the event, that happened, please leave your comments there. Thanks you and have a good weekend! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Evaders99 user said i vandalized the article. What did I do to deserve that? I just said this group is not disbanded.--121.133.40.84 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of an indefinite hiatus is not even supported by Woollim’s statement. You are so incredibly persistent in having it changed to an indefinite hiatus that it comes across as you being a heavily biased fan. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say as I'm a biased fan. I'm telling the truth.--121.133.40.84 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Woolim doesn't use the term "disband" - Wikipedia uses reliable, secondary sources and does not prefer the use of primary sources WP:PSTS. Just because Korean companies do not like to publish bad publicity doesn't mean they aren't defacto disbanded. Pretty much all rights for Kpop groups belong to their company, not the individual members. Such groups never get reformed.Evaders99 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a numerous groups that even if they move to a new agency individually, group is still remained. why just ignoring the examples? Don't predicates your opinion.--121.133.40.84 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what other groups have done as we're solely talking about Lovelyz. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Btspurplegalaxy, Evaders99: I was the one that reverted that the edit and replaced it with "Indefinite hiatus" because as mentioned in the edit summary, Woollim themselves didn't use the term "disband" in their official statement which was sent to the various news medias including Sports Donga which was included as the citation in this article, as seen in Sports Donga article, they used the term "disband" in the headline despite the official statement which they included in the same article not mentioning such which was the reason to why I reverted it as I deemed it as factually incorrect.
Before, I reverted it to "Indefinite hiatus" and with accompanied source that doesn't have fancy headline that mentioned "disband" like Sports Donga, I did search around Naver for news published on November 1–25, 2021, and the results is half-half, half of the news media uses "disband" in their fancy headline, half of its doesn't. I also did search around other "considered disband" K-pop group for references such as Girl's Day and Infinite (which was part of Woollim), this seem closer to Girl's Day compared to Infinite even though Infinite's members either left by "not renewing" their contract or "contract has expired".
While I do know that secondary is preferred over primary, if so, what should be the actual resolution since this is kind of WP:EDITWAR between the two of your and the IP, the IP wasn't wrong either because he/she is just stating the fact as what was actually published by Woollim Entertainment themselves hence I don't see their edits as bad faith. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as bad faith because the only source that is stating they are not disbanding is the OP himself. He is using the lack of statement from Woolim to argue that they are not disbanding... which is not at all how this works. Whether "Sports Donga" is accurately reporting this, it should be up to other secondary sources or Woolim themselves to dispute this. Evaders99 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evaders99 Erm, I actually added another source that has zero-indication of the term/word "disband" when I restore the revision to indicated as "Indefinite hiatus" as suppose to disband. While true that IP initially didn't include any supporting source in either edit summary or in your talk page or Btspurplegalaxy talk page, there're actually other news source from reputable news publisher that didn't follow Sports Donga with their inaccurate reporting. So in answering to your statement "should be up to other secondary sources", yes, as mentioned in earlier sentence and also in my initial reply, there are secondary sources in Naver News that didn't published their reporting as disband. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not publishing news with the word "disband" is not the same as saying they are not disbanding. Naver News is only reporting their contracts are expiring... which is what has already been stated and sourced. Sports Donga did state it was a defacto disband. So far, there hasn't been reporting contradicting this or calling out Sports Donga themselves. I'd certainly support a statement if there is another source (Woolim or other news) that explicitly state they are remaining as a group (even though we know this isn't likely ever to happen). Evaders99 (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evaders99 Yes, I'm aware of that, so what your solution to this dispute then? Since this is neither disband explictly (by Woolim themselves) nor indefinite hiatus explictly nor remain as a group explictly. Adding "considered as disband" or tweaking the existing paragraph to include what Sports Donga's commentary/thoughts which is to include "defacto disband"? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original text was fine. The group was disbanded, Sports Donga said it. It was sourced. It needs no confirmation from Woolim - they can deny it if they want to.Evaders99 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evaders99 By your logic, Sports Donga is the label of Lovelyz then because they said so with their inaccurate reporting, while true they're "considered as disband" by the so-called "fan's convention" since all of except one left the Woollim. Obviously, you also know they can deny it if they want to is completely impossible situation which I was why I'm finding a middle ground however it does seem like you wouldn't prefer a middle ground but prefer back to square one. Nevermind (nevermind doesn't mean, I agreed with using disband/disbanded/disbandment term in the article) then, unless you change your mind then feel free to reply, else it would be going in circles. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We fundamentally disagree. That's fine, coming to a consensus doesn't always mean we all agree or there is a middle point here. You consider it inaccurate reporting - there's no evidence that it is though. Two points are mentioned in sources - A contracts are expired and B they are disbanded. Many sources say A, one source says B - A does not imply B is invalid. And no source currently states that B is invalid. Evaders99 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Evaders99. As there are no sources to confirm it is an indefinite hiatus, I would suggest that it be removed altogether. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Btspurplegalaxy While I'm not against removing it altogether, then what should it be replaced with then, don't tell me is to replace back with disband/disbandment as that isn't a solution to the dispute but back to square one and also because if you even bothered reading my initial comment (which I assumed you already did) and later comment to Evaders99 above, you could see why already. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lovelyz&oldid=1201255975"