Jump to content

Talk:F(x) (musical group)/Archive 1

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

Solo pages

At this point, the group hasn't officially debuted yet and has yet to really establish itself as a notable group. And if the band's not really notable at this point, the members would really have to demonstrate notability outside of f(x). That's why I redirected a couple back to this page because they haven't done anything outside of simply being a member. The other three have done some things, so I think they could remain as-is, although I really don't know if they would pass a deletion discussion or not. SKS (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, the members of their sister group, Girls' Generation, have been in the music business and more active far more than any individual member of this group, yet the members of this group get their own pages, while the SNSD girls each have a small section on the group page. That doesn't seems right at all. TurtleFu (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Amber

Isn't Amber Chinese American and not Taiwanese American? That's what all the press is saying. 24.6.23.45 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

She(Amber Liu) is Taiwanese American and from L.A in U.S.A--Hoya94th (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There have been according to a Korean 버클 f(x), they were "spotted at a small cafe in Samcheong-dong, Amber paid for Krystal and they were being 'very cozy' with each other and Krystal even had her face in Amber's neck like she was inhaling it and they kept giggling."
Is that a scandal...I dont think so...Is that encyclopedic content...I dont think so...Is that even necessary...I dont think so... Farjad0322 (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of article.

Please do not move this article away from F(x) (band). Regardless of the "type" of group it is, Wikipedia guidelines say that "band" should the main disambiguating term. Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't add other stuff besides band in the parentheses, however it would be preferable to eliminate the disambiguation parentheses altogether given there is no collision. I argue that there is no collision: f(x) is an appropriate example of a function, but it is not an appropriate article title for the subject of function. Hence as far as legitimate article titles goes, f(x) does not have a name collision. Therefore, per WP:PRECISE, we should shorten the article title. --68.175.31.97 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comeback

F(x) officially made their comeback May 4th 2010 with the release of the single NU 예삐오 (NU ABO) and their first EP NU ABO the following day. Shouldn't we update or should we wait for the release of the MV to be released May 6th 2010? Also with the album officially being released it should be added to their discography with the appropriate information. ChaoticShelly (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Early Life + ETERNITY MV

By reading the Chinese articles in the ref, and Baidu Baike (chinese version of wiki) the information on the early life and the ETERNITY MV were not correct.


The following corrections were made.

  1. Victoria at least spend middle and high school at Beijing Dance Academy this boarding school. Also a footage of her early days was show in Zhang Ziyi's CNN intview.
  2. She was spotted by a S.M. Entertainment's agent at a Beijing dance competition.
  3. In the "ETERNITY", the footage of her journey where she followed Kangta to fan meetings and concerts, is production of SM Entertainment.
  4. Although Victoria did not follow Kangta to fan meetings and concerts in real life, however she did join SM Entertainment because of him. At time(and still is) Kangta is a very big name entertainer in China, because of music, and drama.

--Lpmfx (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chu~♥:Single Album

Unlike "La Cha Ta"(only have digital download),"Chu" is single album which also have CD format. see Hanteo --Lpmfx (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Prediction Removed

The following is only a 2011 prediction, should not used in the article.

As of 2011, f(x) is considered one of the "five in the middle" in the South Korean girl-band scene, alongside T-ara, After School, SISTAR, and Brown Eyed Girls — after the "strong four" consisting of Girls' Generation, Wonder Girls, 2NE1, and Kara.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Which Girl Band Will Rule the Charts in 2011?", 15 January 2011, The Chosun Ilbo

Background on Group Name

The Asian pop dance group 'f(x)' is made up of international members including Victoria, Amber, Luna, Krystal, and Sulli. Their group name 'f(x)' is uniquely written like the mathematical symbol for 'function', which portrays the members' passion to unfold eclectic performances throughout not only Korea but also Asia based on their various talents that could be applied in to the equation as 'x', to yield unexpected results. The 'f' also stands for 'flower', the 'x' stands for the XX chromosome of women, and together it's associated with women and beauty, hinting at the group's ambition to become the hot icon that would represent all Asian pop dance groups. [1]

References

  1. ^ f(x) Official Channel on YouTube - created by SM Entertainment

Birth dates

Resolved
 – References provided by Dubulge

All uncited birthdates are a violation of the policy of biographies of living people: WP:BLP. As such they will be reverted until they get references to verify them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Matter resolved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving Article

to User:ChamAlien You can't just move an article without a discussion first on the talk page.--Lpmfx (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Vote Against Moving

There is no reason to move f(x)'s article. There also needs to be a discussion page implemented before any sort of moving can take place. Also the group's name is f(x) not f(X), and by wiki rule the word "(band)" was added to the article for identification of the group vs the math article f(x). Also See #Name_of_article.--Lpmfx (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Krystal's birthname

Krystal's birth name is Chrystal Soo Jung as referenced here [1], please do not change it. --TerryAlex (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sulli's hiatus

Should we put the word (hiatus) next to Sulli or not? Please discuss as there are many inaccurate changes/vandalism regarding this right now. If we do, should we use "hiatus" or "inactive"? Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Until SM makes an official statement, I would suggest not doing anything. As the group itself is no longer promoting, there isn't really anything to say what her status is in the group. These hiatus periods happen all the time, to shield members from the media - and may be temporary or last indefinitely. Saying anything right now is just speculation from fans. Evaders99 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, because it seems like there are multiple attempts of vandalism in the past couple of days, so I just want to bring this up as I want to know when to revert and when not to. --TerryAlex (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagery and artistry

Can someone find the sources (in Korean or English) for that section? Because if we don't then I think it's best to take that entire section out.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hello f(x), F(x)'s Koala, and Amazing f(x)

All three TV show articles have little information in them, which is mostly unsourced. There is also no indication of notability. Random86 (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

These articles were redirected as there wasn't any reliably sourced information to merge. Random86 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sulli had not left the group

Sulli is still officially a member of f(x), so the article can't call her a former member or call the group a four-member group. SM has denied the rumor that Sulli is leaving. Random86 (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

infobox photo

in the infobox photo of the page, jessica jung has been listed as one of the members, even though it's actually krystal, her younger sister, who is in f(x). shouldn't this be corrected?86.4.37.106 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been corrected. Thanks for pointing that out! Random86 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in F(x) (band)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of F(x) (band)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "spin":

  • From Tropical house: http://www.spin.com/2016/01/rihanna-tropical-house-dancehall-kygo-charlie-puth-justin-bieber-selena-gomez/
  • From 4 Walls (song): Dorof, Jakob (November 4, 2015). "Review: F(x) – 4 Walls (album)". Spin. Retrieved June 14, 2016.
  • From 4 Walls: Dorof, Jakob (November 4, 2015). "Review: The Ever-Inventive f(x) Are Gunning for World's Greatest Pop Group on '4 Walls'". Spin. Retrieved April 7, 2016.

Reference named "star":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on F(x) (band). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:4L (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Amber & Luna are no longer in f(x)

In the most recent statement by SM, they mention Krystal having an existing contract and renegitiations with Victoria, but they specifically state that Amber and Luna are done with the label. They are no longer members of f(x) and therefore should be removed from the members list.-K-popguardian (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Same as SNSD, they left the label but not the group, unless SM specifically mentions that they are no longer members of Fx. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: No it's not the same as SNSD. SNSD the members and SM Entertainment both specifically stated they were still in the group and negotiations would happen. With f(x) absolutely no one has said they are in f(x) and SM confirmed that Luna and Amber left the label without negotations. Only Victoria is negotiating and fits in that category, but Amber and Luna are not in f(x), and no sources will support that they are still in the group.-K-popguardian (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No sources are saying that they left F(x) either, the only official info is that they left SM. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: I doubt it would say right out. Keep in mind that Kris, Tao, and Luhan, were left on EXO's wikipedia page 3 years after the lawsuits because they were just suing, and it wasn't an "official departure." Henry also hasn't said anything about association with Super Junior-M (the statement says he only left SM,) but its been a year, and he hasn't had any activities with Super Junior or even reference. This is even moreso that Amber is deciding to continue solely with her American label.-K-popguardian (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Amber just said in an interview f(x) could "POSSIBLY" come back in the future if the "time is right," but now, the group has no plans to be together. I honestly think this could mean a disbandment.-K-popguardian (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

f(x) Disband

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/01/amber-liu-admits-no-plans-fx-reunion-talks-angry-new-single-hands-behind-back-10842126 This is a direct interview with Amber where she flat out states that there's no plans for f(x) to reunite. She doesn't say a hiatus happened, some just said coming back is "never not an option." I think this does spell a disbandment for f(x) and we should treat it as such. - K-popguardian (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


F(x) (group) → f(x) – When referring to the function (mathematics) page, it doesn't seem to look at f(x), and the description to this page at the beginning of the function page seems confusion. It seems that there is no need to reserve f(x) for the function, since the function was actually created in 2004, while f(x) was created in 2020. We can optionally redirect f(x) to this page. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#about Function (mathematics). I would like to thank Þjarkur for teaching us how to do this and notify the start of the discussion. SilverMatsu (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The mathematical notation for a generic function is the primary topic. Pop musicians are not. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose but move to F(x) (musical group). The proposed move must be rejected per WP:LEAST: A reader must know before opening the article whether it is about music or mathematics. Since "f(x)" is mathematics for many people, and "group" is also a mathematical term, the provided disambiguation is ambiguous. Thus my suggestion. D.Lazard (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I did consider this point as well before expressing my opinion above. I don't know that this additional disambiguation is required, but for the record I don't oppose it either. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    This is the least bad oppose ground, since it has an actual policy basis. I think this application of WP:LEAST would, if applied consistently through the encyclopedia, mean that we should have no articles whose handle is ambiguous, which would be a quite radical change from the status quo. People looking for information on Lamport's document preparation system might be surprised by what latex links to. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    since it has an actual policy basis As opposed to your !vote, which does not succeed in articulating any general principle that applies at all. --JBL (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    Fair enough, this was uncollegial. I should rather have said that I think D.Lazard's is the most persuasive of the oppose arguments. With respect to your argument, you would be surprised at the interest shown in 20yo pop that was regarded as trivial at the time they became famous and I think we should be weighting the cumulative value of an article having its most natural name vs a differently named article having the benefit of a redirect whose encyclopedic utility has not been shown over the 20 years, not just the single time point at the end of that 20-year span. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In 20 years, the number of people who spend any time thinking about this short-lived music group will have shrunk to almost nothing, but the number of people newly introduced to the mathematical notation who might want to find the Wikipedia article with relevant information will be substantial. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's no way that function isn't the wp:primarytopic. Also i was genuinly WP:SURPRISED that this article wasn't a weird name for the group (mathematics) made by function composition. I support D.Lazard proopsal to move this page to F(x) (musical group)—blindlynx (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- even if I don't like mathematics, clearly Function (mathematics) is the definite topic of f(x). enjoyer -- talk 14:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - There is no article at f(x), instead it is a redirect to Function (mathematics). The redirect in fact is unused in mainspace, and I find it hard to think of occasions where we would want to refer to Function (mathematics) with the text f(x). While I initially found the request strange, on closer inspection I think SilverMatsu's proposed move would do absolutely no harm to the mathematical side of the encyclopedia, while it seems to be the clearly preferable home for the pop ephemera side of the encyclopedia. Evidence that f(x) sees substantial use as a landing page by people looking for information on mathematical functions would change my !vote, but as it stands I find the above arguments lacking in force. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    How is a redirect "unused"? If a redirect exist, then that title is used. enjoyer -- talk 15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    See link.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    More precisely, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=F%28x%29&namespace=0 — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to change what f (x) means mathematics. I'm making this suggestion to improve the Function(mathematics). Both this article and f (x), which is a Function(mathematics) and a redirect, seem correct, but the result is strange. When I refer to Function (mathematics) without using f (x), it is strange that For the girl group, see f (x) (group) is displayed. Moving this page to F(x) (musical group) is a good suggestion to reduce confusion. It may be better to make f (x) a Dab page so that it doesn't redirect directly to the function or article name f(x) doesn't exist. In other words, only F (x) (musical group) exists, and f (x) is not created.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In short, I tried to improve the function, but I was confused by the redirect and just thought it would be better to improve the name of this page than to improve the function directly in order to improve the redirect. But it's very sad to think that I made this proposal because I don't like math. I don't express my intention because I lack the ability and effort at all. My appearance is too ugly to reveal my feelings in front of a beautiful person.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't quite understand what you mean with that second part, but you're right that our practice of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs can lead to surprising hatnotes. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your quotation is incomplete. The hanote that you see you see is "f(x)" redirects here. For the girl group, see f(x) (group). This is a standard hatnote, and you can see a similar hatnote when the target of a redirect is the WP:Primary topic of a redirect name that has several meanings. I do not see what is the problem for a reader who reads the first sentence of the hatnote. D.Lazard (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A K-pop group that isn't even active any longer is not the primary meaning of "f(x)". Whether or not the redirect from f(x) to function (mathematics) is used in mainspace is not really a concern; redirects are also there to help external search engines be less clueless. Nor is an unusual hatnote at function (mathematics) really a problem. Sometimes, hatnotes provide a little whimsy (one example that springs to mind is atop N. David Mermin), but that's just a side effect of how we do things. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure, all we can do is make the name of the article clearer. So it seems best to change the group to a musical group. And so far, there seems to be no way to make f (x) a separate article. (Without redirecting to the function). It doesn't seem to make much sense to try to do something we can't do.--SilverMatsu (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that a lot of confusion here is that "(group)" is a bad way to disambiguate the title, because that word has a mathematical meaning that could still be easily confused with the intended meaning. My suspicion is that the musical group should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in part because it has wide fame beyond a technical topic and in part because the title for the mathematical concept is not "f(x)" but something else. But if f(x) continues to be a redirect to the mathematical concept, we could use a better disambiguator, like f(x) (K-pop) or f(x) (musical group) or something. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • K-pop seems as good as musical group. The reason f(x) is rarely used in math articles is probably because we write it .--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but the reason it's a bad name for an article on functions is that the only thing that lets you know it's a function is the function-application syntax something(something else). f and x are just arbitrary placeholders that could be any other letters. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • One reason f(x) isn't used much to refer to functions in general is that only part of that construction, the f, actually refers to a function while the rest, the (x) simply does not make sense outside of the context of a definition, and the form most usually appears on the left-hand side of a definition or the statement of a theorem; in other words to use this way of referring is kind of incoherent, although perhaps someone could unearth evidence of context where it is so used. It could also be considered to be used to refer to a notation, as suggested by some above, but AFAICS nobody before this discussion has ever suggested that. Likewise it could be used to refer to the concept of function application, but again, I don't see that any editor has ever indicated a desire to use such a redirect. None of the oppose votes arguing for the preferability of the redirect to be a redirect to a maths article are grounded in facts about what either editors or users of the encyclopedia actually want in practice. I don't say the gut feeling of editors about the primary significance of f(x) is entirely to be discounted, but it is weak sauce compared to the discussion about the redirect that occurred before this Requested Move. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
      • F (disambiguation) did not list Map (mathematics) and functions (mathematics). Blackboard bold 𝔽 seems to exist. f(z) did not exist--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Correct me if i'm wrong but it appears you are saying that 'f(x)' does not primarily refer to a generic function?—blindlynx (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
        • What do we meean generic function? generic function? functions in general? generalized function? Generic functions often come up in this discussion and confuse me. --SilverMatsu (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
          Open any standard calculus textbook -- Stewart, or OpenStax, or whatever. Open to any theorem statement, example, or exercise. It will probably contain a function (maybe several). If exactly one function appears in the problem, then in all likelihood it will be denoted "f(x)". (Yes, technically, the function is denoted "f" and the variable is denoted "x"; but anyone who has ever taught calculus is aware that this is a level of subtlety and sophistication that students at that stage do not easily grasp.) --JBL (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
          Based on your opinion, it seems that Graph of a function can also be considered as a redirect destination for f(x). However, this will move the hatnote confusion to another article. The reason I made this suggestion is the confusion that hatnotes bring, and for functions, f (x) is just one way to represent a function (mathematics), while it's a unique name for an artist. If the artist is noteworthy, the redirect will be changed to the artist, in which case it will be a page move technically. Originally this case is that function should be a cushioning material, but it seems that it is not working. It may seem strange to redirect to a function, as f (x) has a clear enough meaning. There is a way to make f (x) Dab, but I'm not sure if it will meet the criteria of the article.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
          I am sorry to admit that, after reading many of your comments, I am still not sure what problem you think there is. Let me try to articulate the situation as I see it, and maybe you can tell me which parts we agree and disagree about. Here goes: the sequence of characters "f(x)" is ambiguous; it is used to denote a function (or an evaluation of a function, or whatever) in mathematics, but is also the name of a short-lived musical group. We are trying to solve the problem of figuring out what a reader who puts "f(x)" into the search bar is looking for, and help them find that information. It is my opinion that, now and for the foreseeable future, by far the most likely thing a person would be looking for is information about the idea of functions in mathematics. (A piece of evidence in favor of this is that, if the article on the musical group is to be believed, their name is a reference to the mathematical usage.) The mathematical material about functions is certainly not going to reside at an article titled "f(x)", so a redirect is necessary to point readers to the correct place. However, that leaves the smaller group of people who really were interested in K-pop in the wrong place; so a hat-note is necessary to direct them to the article about the singers. Hat-notes of this kind are extremely common on Wikipedia articles with similar titles; the one at Function (mathematics) is completely clear about what it is pointing to (an article about musicians) and why (because they have the same name as a redirect to the article). What part of this do you object to? --JBL (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
          Only the part that directly redirects f (x) to a Function (mathematics) needs to be discussed. But, what we do with the redirect will affect deciding the name of this article. I considered the priority of not confusing the Function (mathematics) article and keeping the f (x) redirect and I thought the Function (mathematics) had a higher priority. In other words, I was thinking secondarily about what to do with the priority of the redirect destination of f (x). There is no need to change the article name of the function, the redirect is accurate (and Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap), so the first thing we needed to discuss was the name of this article, even though it was irrelevant to the content of this article. The content of the Function (mathematics) is irrelevant to the music artist, and this artist calls thereself f (x), not the function. This makes me think that f (x) needs to be disambiguation, not redirect. I'm thinking about whether f (x) can exist as disambiguation and what pages are related to f (x). Also, if math symbols or terms are used again in the names of content that is less relevant to math, something similar to this case seemed to happen, so I think some guidance is needed. However, I'm also feeling that the only thing I can do this time is to keep the redirects and make the name of this article clearer.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
          f (x) is the image of the function f. --SilverMatsu (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          I am sorry, but I am not able to understand in what way this answers my question. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          sorry, the I added explanation was shorter. I thought the discussion was already talking about moving f (x) (group) to f (x) (music group) or f (x) (k-pop). And I thought the discussion had moved to discussing the redirect destination for f (x). I had to say this, I'm no longer trying to move f (x) (group) to f (x). Apparently, it seems that the estimate was insufficient to think that the user who examines f (x) has a distinction between x, f and f (x). Looking at the consensus on this page, it doesn't seem to be expected. And I should think that when searching wikipedia, users who look up k-pop find the word f (x) in k-pop and come to look up the meaning of f (x).--SilverMatsu (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          I forgot to make it clear that I'm no longer proposing to redirect f (x) to this page. In other words, I would like to see if Graph of a function and image could be a redirect candidate for f (x). However, this discussion is just a move discussion on this page, so it may be necessary to discuss it elsewhere after this discussion closes.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments made above. Function (mathematics) is the primary topic of f(x), not an inactive K-pop group. Some1 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Personal attack removed) Strongly oppose as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: as much as I love f(x) the group, I would really use f(x) as the function more for algebraic maths that could definitely be way more useful and commonly known than the gen 2.5 Korean idol group from buttfuck $M Entertainment –beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 12:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have removed the unconstructive and inappropriate personal attack from your message. I have left the unconstructive and tasteless crudity (as it is not a violation of policy), but please restrain yourself in the future. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:F(x)_(musical_group)/Archive_1&oldid=1131431448"