Talk:Katseye

This article is rated Start-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). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Pop music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. 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. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start.

North8000 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Btspurplegalaxy Groups are usually referred by their nationality IF it is easily defined. In the case of XG, it is a clear-cut Japanese group given that it comprises of Japanese members. However the situation is more complicated here given that half of the members are of other nationalities and the origin is split, given the course of the program, between agencies from United States and South Korea. In these cases, the descriptors "Global" or "Multinational" are used for precision (see Now United and Blackswan), yet the former is preferred for concision and its usage in the sources cited in the article (see [1] and [2]). If you are still aloof about the "Global" descriptor, consider the other prevalent descriptor for groups similar to Katseye. In the end, we just need to describe Katseye in a way that is objective and is in line with the sources used in the article, something that the current revision has failed to do. EdrianJustine (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer using the term "multinational" instead of "global." Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @EdrianJustine: DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see you here, since I haven't noticed your contributions to the Katseye article before. I hope this isn't a case of WP:HOUNDING my edits. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 21:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly changed back the group's description per EdrianJustine's reasoning. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 23:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush into changing anything just yet. I would like to see what @Paper9oll: thinks on this matter. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 23:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All reliable sources described the group as "global" and putting "American" in both sd and lead are misleading to the readers. There should be an inline citation to support the claim (MOS:LEADCITE) as none in the body of the article describe the group as an American but rather intended to promote in the American market. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 00:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "global group", basically just a promotional and soapboxing gabbage and holds no real distinctive value to an encyclopedia article. I believe that WP:NATIONALITY is already clearcut on such as this is also a biography hence this guideline is applicable. Reading through the article, I could see that this group is originated in American (California to be more specify) however I couldn't find "the origin is split" where is this stated or was this a original research linking Hybe Corporation (based in South Korea) and Geffen Records (based in United States) together to form the term "global group" and/or "multinational"??? What is even more confusing reading through this discussion is since when we have such practice of using individual member's nationality and/or using the majority nationality among the members to defined the group's origin in the lead??? Hence not exactly sure, why was this an issue to begin with. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't agree with global. It just makes more logical sense to put American. The two other editors would prefer global. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The practice that you find confusing is simply a result of going through the sources that were used in the article and the related Dream Academy article. Using "American" as a descriptor remains in conflict with the sources that refer to the group as being a "global", "multinational, or "international" group, given the various nationalities of the members. Those descriptors are not Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS, but are the most common words used to identify the group in media. Given that pertinent coverage does largely focus on the diversity of the group (i.e. the multinational nature of the members), MOS:NATIONALITY would agree that such descriptors would be appropriate and accurate. EdrianJustine (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case my earlier reply wasn't clear enough which I doubt so since @Btspurplegalaxy interpreted it correctly, I conclusively stated that "we [don't] have such practice [aka STATUS QUO] of using individual member's nationality and/or using the majority nationality among the members to defined the group's origin in the lead". The confusion doesn't lies with reading the sources and/or reading the related article which was already WP:BEFORE before replying earlier but rather questioning why on earth is this discussion going against the well established STATUS QUO i.e. defining x group based on y origin i.e. the nationality where the group was founded and/or where they started their career. By your logic, Twice is a "global" and/or "multinational" and/or "international" group also since "the diversity of the group" (i.e. the multinational nature of the members of South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese). Same for Blackpink and/or NewJeans. I also couldn't find where exactly NATIONALITY implied "that such descriptors would be appropriate and accurate". Lastly, just because Hybe and/or Geffen promoting and/or marketing them as "global" and/or "multinational" and/or "international" group and that the media simply doing "stenographic reporting" and/or "press release journalism" and/or "parrot journalism" does not guarantee inclusion just because it is verifiable. I remain firm in my position not to agree to disagree on the use of promotional and/or marketing terminology, as I have clearly stated. However, I am open to exploring other solutions under the condition that the existing term "American girl group" is retained and any proposed solutions must not involve promotional and/or marketing language, regardless of intent, however a slight leeway for promotional and/or marketing language is allowed if the solutions involves quoting. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]