Talk:Ive (group)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ive (group). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ive (group) at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group. Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Ive (South Korean group). The result of the discussion was not moved.

should the "Love Dive" album be removed? it hasn't come out yet blueskies (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be removed since it's been confirmed and there is an official release date. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Entertainment in a article via Naver confirmed member Gaeul as their "Main Dancer" the translation of korean to english goes

"Autumn is the main dancer of certainty. She made a mark with her powerful performance that contrasted with her innocent appearance. Even in group dance, they dominated the stage with neat dance lines.” The text says Autumn because Gaeul means Autumn in Korean." 

Source:https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/433/0000079097 Moonlight Entm (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been making some changes and noticed that some of the members only had their stage names, and has no Wiki page, can you guys help in creating one? 122.52.26.133 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the previous move request which failed, I believe the consensus which formed was uncompelling. I recently participated in a move request discussion [2] and the consensus which formed in this move request is that subjects of articles are allowed to determine their own exceptional stylization per MOS:BIOEXCEPT. While IVE is a 'group' and a 'copyrighted term', so editors are entitled to quote and consider WP:TITLETM, MOS:ALLCAPS, and MOS:TMRULES, the higher consideration should be given to the fact this article is effectively a biography of a living person and active project, and a consensus of editors believes article subjects should be allowed to determine their own stylization, even if it is exceptional per Wikipedia's own stylistic conventions. I would also consider MOS:IDENTITY as being more relevant than what is cited. This affects a number of Korean pop groups and I believe most editors who have contributed to the titlings of groups in this topic area have operated from incorrect comprehension of policy.

This topic affects a number of Korean pop groups which satisfy MOS:BIOEXCEPT – that these groups clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the exceptional style. Per MOS:IDENTITY, person(s) or groups are entitled to exceptional style. Regarding TMRULES, etc. over these guidelines results in an outcome that is a violation of WP:BLP.

I am not sure how to handle this, actually. It may need to go through RfC but I am not sure how to formulate the question in a way that editors would not potentially have reason to object to as 'leading'. I have elected to bring this issue up here as IVE is probably the most popular group affected by this issue at this time, but other groups immediately come to mind – Le Sserafim [sic], Twice [sic], Artms [sic], Blackpink [sic], etc. Not all of these groups will meet the criteria outlined in BIOEXCEPT (some may fail the 'consistency' requirement), but I can speak with a reasonable degree of confidence to IVE, and a very high degree of confidence to ARTMS. I am wondering what is the best way to get the ball rolling on cleaning up this systemic violation? If there's a lack of input I might submit another move request with the rationale as stated here. 122141510 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A K-pop group name is a trademark; MOS:BIOEXCEPT deals with the names of people. The rule for trademarks is that one should follow standard standard capitalization rules even if all caps is the official form (except for acronyms and initialisms; e.g BTS is capitalized, while Exo isn't). See MOS:TM

MOS:TM also states, "For names of individuals that might be stylized in an unusual way, the application is the same: default to normal English style unless an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use a specific variant style for that person. (See WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Unusual exceptions.)" Note that it only points out names of individuals. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclination to refer to MOS:BIOEXCEPT before referring to WP:BLP is probably flawed – these guys and girls should be compared to other guys and girls, and not to pyrex containers and Macy's. You're overlooking MOS:IDENTITY, which is similar to MOS:TM in allowing individuals to have exceptional style, but also groups. This resolves a little easier for western groups, because afaik musical acts tend to not copyright their names, but one of the examples in BIOEXCEPT appears to me to have one. By your interpretation, my question would be – does the k.d. lang article necessarily have to have its exceptional stylization undone because there is a registered trademark for k.d. lang wordmark [3]? (Probably not? It's a genuine question.) Do we know how MOS:TM considers the Korean trademark system in the context of the English language Wikipedia? And again – are we obliged to avoid using stylization because something is also a trademark? I follow your logic and how you interpret the policies to arrive at the outcome you do but when you roll in WP:BLP we're probably better off focusing on, as it advises, to get it right.

Some groups I looked at are IKon (not a conventional acronym), CNBLUE (explicitly a backronym), TVXQ (English acronym of a foreign language transliteration), MGMT (shortening, not an acronym), PVT_(band) (disemvoweling, not an acronym), Charli XCX (the XCX doesn't stand for anything), NSYNC (not an acronym in the strict definition), t.A.T.u. (not an acronym in the strict definition, stylized on top of that), Mötley Crüe (purely stylistic). There are also a number of exceptions – i.e. articles which reject stylizations in the title and/or body of article – and maybe this isn't just limited to K-pop, but from what I looked at it seemed most likely to come up, given that Korean groups, collective, seem more inclined to play with (and stick with!) stylizations the sort which end up raising questions about how they should or shouldn't be implemented on Wikipedia. (Note that these examples are not meant to suggest or lend itself towards a precedent or consistency argument, I think there is no consistency.)

The strongest argument is to look for the common name. If Wikipedia is virtually the only source online that does not routinely document a group using the preferred stylization, then Wikipedia probably needs to be fixed. Reading MOS:TM or other rules as a rationale to make Wikipedia the odd man out against official stylization, Korean and western sources (both 'official' and journalistic), and out of sync with how the average person (or how our average reader) typically refers to the group, isn't a helpful reading of MOS:TM anyways. 122141510 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the common name argument being the strongest argument ends up probably precluding the ability to do an en masse move request. If the principle as I've suggested isn't accepted by consensus then each group needs to be resolved individually. I've decided to take this approach for now and see how it goes. 122141510 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let's answer your question. "By your interpretation, my question would be – does the k.d. lang article necessarily have to have its exceptional stylization undone because there is a registered trademark for k.d. lang wordmark?" No, because it falls under BIOEXCEPT, which is only for names of individual people. Band names fall under the trademarks policy on Wikipedia (which is stated to also apply to "names and phrases used to identify movements, groups, forums, projects, events, and other non-commercial entities and their output". So it doesn't literally need to have a trademark to have MOS:TM apply. I'm not comparing this to Macy's and Pyrex (not even used in the section I was referring to)—in fact, the band Kiss is used as an example in that very article.

The acronyms and initialisms rule is relevant for stuff like TVXQ and CNBLUE. The rule that capitalization should be used for letters pronounced individually (even if it doesn't stand for anything) covers MGMT. For iKon, MOS:TM says on things like iKon that "initial lowercase in certain trademarks almost never written any other way, such as iPhone and eBay, are accepted on Wikipedia". iKon was moved from iKON because editors found several sources that used iKon (no capitalization after K). Not sure about stuff like NSYNC and t.A.T.u, but they probably fall under WP:COMMONNAME. The BIOEXCEPT angle, as I see it, isn't the best way to go, so citing COMMONNAME might have more strength in regards to these K-pop group articles. I only know so much, so if you want to go further consider visiting WP:VPP or somewhere else. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Ive (group) be renamed and moved to IVE (group). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Ive (group) → IVE (group) – Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. As well, under MOS:IDENTITY, living subjects of articles are entitled to exceptional stylization if they clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the same exceptional style. When read in the context of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is probably necessarily compelled to use the exceptional style in such situations.

A Google News search for "ive kpop" yields a majority of sources which write the name of the group as IVE in both title and body of the news articles. This includes NME, USA Today, L'Officiel Singapore, Variety, Korea JooAng Daily, The Times of India, Spin magazine, Allkpop, NYLON, Korea JoongAng Daily, the Grammy Awards website, Billboard, Forbes India, Hindustan Times

In fairness, I made note of those articles I find not observing the stylization. I also include for your convenience a link to Google results which give you an idea whether the source that article is from consistently does or does not observe the stylization;

• The Korea Herald – consistently does not (Google search for "ive" site:koreaherald.com)
• Buzzfeed - inconsistent (Google search for "ive" site:buzzfeed.com; see also WP:BUZZFEED)
• The Korea Times - consistently IVE otherwise? (Google search for "ive" site:koreatimes.com is consistently IVE, but all almost the results I get in the first 10 pages are primarily written in Korean. Some false positives appear for user comments where they are incorrectly spelling the contraction for I have, and not discussing the group. Page 10 was an arbitrarily chosen cut-off, there was no gotcha on page 11 to make me draw that line.)

Their label's official website presents it as IVE, but this could be taken with a grain of salt because it also renders the individual group members as ANYUJIN, GAEUL, REI, JANGWONYOUNG, etc. The official website for the group proper does the same, with the same caveat . Their official fanclub is about the same – IVE is never not IVE, but almost everything English is rendered in all caps. Still, there are some notable exceptions for these sites – for example, one of their EPs is always After LIKE, which is more relevant to a move request for that article, but gives you some idea of intentionality here. Note that while these official websites are not conclusive given some ambiguity with how they're rendering English overall, but in no case are they not referring to the group as IVE instead of Ive.

Their social media profiles hopefully make things a bit more obvious – they are always IVE on X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Weibo all consistently render the name of the group in IVE. I say that this should make it a little bit more obvious because if you check their posts on these services, you can see they are less stringent in maintaining an ALMOST EVERYTHING IN ENGLISH IS ALL CAPS convention. In more typical posts, the IVE stylization is still prefered.

Marketplaces and/or streaming services including Amazon, Apple Music, Spotify, and Tidal all observe the IVE stylization. Wikipedia is not beholden to fans on SNS or fan wikis, but they can help give some indication of the WP:COMMONNAME; users on the group-dedicated reddit and X appear to overwhelmingly observe the IVE stylization, as do users on any number of fan wikis I found; [4], [5], [6]. I could also link to an untold number of fansites which all observe the IVE stylization. Finally – at least for now – I'll also suggest it's worth looking at the Korean language edition of Wikipedia (title IVE) as well as the Japanese language edition (titled IVE (音楽グループ)). Korea and Japan receive the bulk of the group's marketing efforts.

I am requesting here the same move as was done in January 2024. This isn't simply taking another bite at the apple, but making a more robust argument on the basis of aspects of MOS:TMRULES which I believe were overlooked last time – specifically, how should we interpret the almost never in TMRULES? (And does the result of that interpretation agree with WP:COMMONNAME, or come into conflict with it?) I mentioned some other considerations at the top as well. Given the subjects of the article fall under WP:BLP, we might also obliged to consider MOS:IDENTITY; When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. MOS:BIOEXCEPT may also be relevant. 122141510 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:ALLCAPS, and MOS:ABBR. This is not an acronym/initialisms, it's purely over-capitalization for marketing purposes, just like a zillion cases before this. The very reason that we have MOS:TM is "don't over-capitalize or employ other stylistic shenangigans to mimic logos, trademarks, and other marketing". As for "This isn't simply taking another bite at the apple" – Yes, that's exactly what it is. Providing some additional links to things that like to capitalize is not a new argument and does nothing to undo the fact that we have long-standing guidelines specifically against this. The almost never written except in a particular stylized form standard is obviously not met here when top-tier search results like United Press International, South China Morning Post, and the especially pertinent The Korea Herald and KoreaBizWire (the latter republishing the group's own press releases!) use lower case, and so does KoreaTimes (mostly; I did find one article with it capitalized there; various "new media" sites let individual journalsts mostly write and directly publish as they like with very little editorial revision, and may also just aggregate stories from multiple original sources, so some sites will show back-and-forth inconsistencies on style questions like this). The capitalization is mainly found in non-independent sources we don't care about, and in entertainment-journalism sources which arguably do not qualify as independent because their entire survival is dependent on advertising revenue from record labels and other entertainment-industry companies insistent on their marketing-stylizations. Worse, the sorts of sources that write "IVE" are also mostly mimicking over- and weirdo-capitalization of other entertainment product, including "SHOW WHAT i HAVE", "BLACKPINK", "TWICE", "LE SSERAFIM", "SEVENTEEN", "BIGBANG", and so on (and the majority of these publishers are in Korea, India, or some other location where English is not a native language, though not every publisher in such places does this). This isn't WP style, and it's not normative style in any form of English-language writing, including journalism (which does not set WP style anyway). That doesn't mean, of course, that no native-English, non-entertainment, mainstream news sources can be found writing "IVE"; Forbes does it, as does USA Today. In short, this is really a conflict between Wikipedia style and "always precisely mimic trademarks to keep advertisers happy" style, and we know which one applies on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please provide sources when you make assertions that sources do not use the stylization? I instantly recognized you were incorrect about SCMP (see [7]) but am not familiar with the others. 122141510 (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I tend to agree with SMcCandlish for the same reasons. Just because the Korean marketing tends to ignore English conventions doesn't mean Wikipedia should also ignore them. This is largely MOS:TMRULES and consistent in not allowing stylizations like SHINee or BIGBANG to override encyclopedic entries. Evaders99 (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. South China Morning Post does use the stylization. Here are multiple examples across an extended period of IVE in title and in body of article, IVE in title and in body of article, IVE in title and in body of article, IVE in title and in body of article, IVE in title and in body of article, IVE in title and in body of article. Likewise, so does the Korea Times, as in IVE in title and body of article, IVE in title and body of article, IVE in title and body of article, etc. IVE is overwhelmingly the COMMONNAME, but even if wasn't clear, Wikipedia is probably obliged to use the term that the person or group uses anyways. 122141510 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose'—Why should we allow commercial boosterism on WP. Tony (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: as per SMcCandlish arguments. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The oppose argument, appears to me, to be mostly predicated on misreading the same MOS as being cited for reason to oppose. The argument also does not acknowledge MOS:IDENTITY whatsoever. For emphasis, the oppose arguments have not spoken to either;

1. Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia.
2. Per MOS:IDENTITY, When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.

Characterizing the request as 'either Wikipedia style or mimicking trademarks to keep advertisers happy' is incorrect. Rather: it is either Wikipedia style, or, apparently misreading Wikipedia style as basis to overcorrect for fear of being mistaken as potentially satiating an advertiser. There is nothing in MOS that says to ignore WP:COMMONNAME as a primary concern for how to title an article. 122141510 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per SMcCandlish and Tony1. Marketing all-caps on streaming services and such are irrelevant for us, as are fan sites. Overwhelming use of all-caps in independent, reliable sources would have to be established, but there usage seems rather mixed. Gawaon (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]