Talk:Loossemble/Archive 1
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Paper9oll in topic Defining the name
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Defining the name
The name's explanation is not of defining importance and it makes more sense to just mention it as part of the group's history as done in Arctic Monkeys, Black Sabbath, and NSYNC. There is nothing wrong with having a standalone section for the group's name, however, leaving it as part of the introduction would make more sense; make the article flow better; and make the article's structure seem less fancrufty. EdrianJustine (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @EdrianJustine Oppose. Name section are used not just in this article (regardless of mainspace or draftspace) but also in other mainspace articles (within South Korean group) that are at least assessed C-class and above so there isn't any inconsistency nor something incorrect with such formatting. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not the point though. The point of my proposed change is to improve the flow of the article, as contextually speaking, there isn't a need to pick out the name's introduction. There is not enough substantial material about its meaning about it nor is it subject to significant discussion from either the members, agency, or the media. These weaknesses makes a standalone section for name seem unmerited or borderline fancrufty. Per the source, the name's explanation is heavily tied to the group's introduction, which is already covered in a dedicated section, and it would make sense to just connect these two, directly connected, passages together to keep the timeline straight. EdrianJustine (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @EdrianJustine While I understand your point from the start. I'm just saying that this "rule" (convention) should be applied consistently. If we change here then the same should and must applies to all other mainspace articles that has such section, which is also similarly sized in terms of words/sentences/length, and also written more or less the same. There shouldn't be inconsistency between articles regardless of the age, assessment class, and the namespace it's on. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not the point though. The point of my proposed change is to improve the flow of the article, as contextually speaking, there isn't a need to pick out the name's introduction. There is not enough substantial material about its meaning about it nor is it subject to significant discussion from either the members, agency, or the media. These weaknesses makes a standalone section for name seem unmerited or borderline fancrufty. Per the source, the name's explanation is heavily tied to the group's introduction, which is already covered in a dedicated section, and it would make sense to just connect these two, directly connected, passages together to keep the timeline straight. EdrianJustine (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)