Talk:Katseye

Feedback from New Page Review process

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

North8000 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Global vs American

@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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is the consensus still “American”? Nearly every source and article I see calls KATSEYE a global/multinational group. I feel there’s no harm in saying it and using a new term. The group allows a new age for groups, which would allow for “multinational” being used as its descriptor. I also feel it isn’t “marketing garbage” because its descriptor makes sense: “global girl group” is a newly coined term, so “global girl group based in Los Angeles” would make sense, in my opinion, especially with its based area “Los Angeles” would add more clarity. 2607:FEA8:4EC0:2D00:178:5CB4:1AEA:5A48 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I also have the same questioning, especially considering how Now United and Blackswan both have "global" and "multinational" descriptors in their articles, as per what @EdrianJustine pointed. Warmtoned (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

With renewed attention to this issue, I do think that the status quo is problematic and will continue to cause conflict as Katseye continues to receive media coverage. No matter what route is taken, the existing term "American girl group" will come across as misleading as most sources indicate a lack of a collective nationality. It contradicts with MOS:NATIONALITY as in this case, they are largely, if not entirely, notable for their varied nationalities as a collective, more so than their country of origin. Or in other words, the lack of a collective nationality is highly relevant to the subject's notability, unlike in the case in the groups that were previously mentioned.

The problem here lies more on the existing term rather than what term should be used. I do believe that if "global" or the like would be deemed unacceptable, then no term may be accepted, as in the current case in Anya Taylor-Joy, which is also a case of multiple nationalities conflicting with each other, though in a different but somewhat similar context. An acceptable, noncontroversial compromise would be:

Katseye (stylized in all caps) is a girl group based in Los Angeles, California. The group consists of six members: Manon, Sophia, Daniela, Lara, Megan, and Yoonchae. Described as a "global girl group", the sextet was formed through the reality show Dream Academy, a collaboration between Hybe Corporation and Geffen Records. The group debuted in 2024 with the single "Debut", which will be followed by the extended play SIS (Soft Is Strong), set to release August 16, 2024.

EdrianJustine (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I back this compromise up! It's a true-to-self descriptor of what the group is, without conflicting other ideas of what they are. Waiting for what others say. Warmtoned (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this proposal, as the first sentence avoids introducing promotional content and aligns with nationality guidelines and the existing status quo. I am NOT open to "agreeing to disagree" on any other proposal that deviates from the criteria mentioned in preceding sentence and earlier comments, including but limited to those related to promotional content and nationality guidelines. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Any picture that can be used in the lead?

Although I have uploaded the public domain logos, it still would not make any sense to put that there. The creative commons photo also kept being removed by people who disagreed on me putting a photo of only five members when there's six. Hopefully once the album is out and they go on more interviews we cpild get a photo of all six members but for now if you happen to have a photo of Katseye you have taken yourself please do upload it. This0k (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lara Raj or Lara Rajagopalan or Lara ‘Raj’ Rajagopalan?

I found an article on Cosmopolitan with all of the girls full names but the author called Lara by her full surname. I know that on the documentary Lara was credited as Lara Raj not Lara Rajagopalan. Can find a source citing what Lara's preferred name is?

What is everyone's opinion on this? DSQ (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Members Surnames

Is there a particular reason why this page doesn't have any of the members surnames and why it has been removed when I added them with a source? DSQ (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)