Talk:Whistle (Blackpink song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWhistle (Blackpink song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2024Good article nomineeListed


Requested move 27 October 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There may be some merit in some of these moves, and supporters make some case, but altogether there are too many opposes, and too many counterproposals, that I can't see any clear consensus. I suggest that these be listed individually if you want to pursue any of them further, because it's clear that they don't all fall under one neat umbrella.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Per standard usage throughout Wikipedia. I'm opening this RM for the absurd amount of times "Square One" has been moved. Yes, they are "single albums", but the term "single album" is the oriental way to call what in occident we call extended play. I'm not opposed to move the Asian ones to "(EP)". Hopefully this will be the last time the disambiguation "single" is used. Note that "The Sound of White" is the only one that is in fact a single and should use the standard "(song)" (history merge needed with this one). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zelos (single) and Hades (single) aren't songs so why would you want to call them that? It says right in the articles what the title songs are. Wouldn't it probably make better sense to rename them "Dynamite" and "Fantasy" respectively? I don't think it's wrong to call them single albums, since that's what they are. Maybe an ever better idea is to make a new category for these? Alicia leo86 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the only thing that is misleading here is the usage of "single". A single is this: Toxic (single). Square One (Black Pink single), or any of the rest in the list, are not singles, they are either a mini album or an extended play that are titled "Square One", "Zelos", "Hades", etc.. If you want to change the system that has worked for at least 13 years, and that will affect over 1 million articles, this goes at WT:SONGS. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 09:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not misleading since it’s what they are marketed and sold as, and should be written as so. It’s really not that hard to understand. At least Hades, Zelos, and Square One (all the East Asian single album type category) maybe just change the name to single album? Maybe there should be something in between the Singles and mini/EP because you'll always get that problem with the Square One article and more. Not to mention since the Boys' Record's infobox was changed to EP, there is no continuity in the article since it was also a single album. I get what you are coming from, singles should be singles and EPs should be EPs but it doesn't cover the actual single albums with two to three tracks.Alicia leo86 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support - As there are several pages being discussed, I organized the data a little to try to understand it:

  • Square One (2016, 2 songs, 7.33)
  • Zelos (2016, 3 songs, 1 inst., 13.56)
  • Hades (2016, 3 songs, 1 inst., 14.10)
  • Dumb & Dumber (2016, 4 songs, 28.14, song "Dumb & Dumber")
  • Unistall (2007, 2 songs, 2 inst., 19.42, song & inst. "Unistall")
  • The Sound of White (2005, 3 songs, 12.23, song "The Sound of White") - also on album The Sound of White
  • James II (1985, 2 songs, 5.51)

I originally got interested in this when Square One had a redirect to a Single. As neither of the songs on the release are called Square One, I had to look into what a "single" really was. After researching (per Wikipedia's own articles), I feel the above might aptly be called Singles (or Single albums), but not Songs, as each contains more than one song, and (4 of 7) are not even named as the "single album" is. (oh, for those vinyl days when a single record had Side A and Side B - with two named songs!)

Per WP's own Single (music) (3 tracks, less than 30 min.) and Extended play (combining U.S. & British; 3-5 tracks, more than 25 - 30 min.) all the above qualify for the most part, for their current naming of Single, or Single album which redirects to it.

The only one above that varies from the "Single" definition is Dumb & Dumber, per number of songs, but whose fourth song is a remix. And, I agree with above discussion, "The Sound of White" is the only one currently recorded on a separate album, but was released a year later and contains a new song "Hold Me Tight". The first four on this list are new and might still be named similarly as an upcoming album, but that is inconsequential.

And, heads up for the future, [newly created Square Two (Nov. 2016, 3 songs) - not on move list, already has one redirect].--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonnielou2013: WP:SONGDAB: "Avoid using other terms like "(single)", "(cassette)" or "(CD single)", etc." As Alicia mentioned above, these releases were marketed as singles, but they are not singles; they also are not long enough to call them albums, and having another Big Bang (2006 album) situation is misleading as well. So the only alternative that we are left with is to move them to "extended play", as that's what all of them are and I originally said that: "I'm not opposed to move the Asian ones to "(EP)"." Despite @Alicia leo86: saying this was wrong, despite the whole article was already referring to the record as "EP", is not incorrect because this is English-speakers Wikipedia, having a non-single record labelled as single, solely for being marketed as single is misleading, and left the door open to other people creating articles that are truly singles in "(single)" pages (we have hundreds of (single) redirects already. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the written text in Boys' Record refers to the single as a single album, it is only the infobox that says otherwise. Actually I am still opposed they should still be called singles, as singles as Bonnie said is 3 tracks and less than 30 min and they all fit that criteria. Alicia leo86 (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go and tell that to Apple, Inc.. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 09:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not going to discuss anything else with you. Yor basic understanding of WP:P&Gs and music marketing is deplorable. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposal per User:Bonnielou2013 as there are no actual songs called "Square One" &c. However, support a move to Square One (EP) &c. as these compilations are not singles. (Singles are not defined by their length but by the fact that they feature a single song though they might also have b-sides or remixes.) Additionally, the oxymoronic "single album" should be removed from the intro per WP:UE; this is not Konglish Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  20:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • About singles containing a "single song": what about double A-sided singles? The Beatles' "Penny Lane" (along with "Strawberry Fields Forever") is described as just that in the article about that song. What you said about singles does not seem to apply to that claim so what is different about "Square One" (apart from the Black Pink release having a title of its own besides the song titles)? YuckieDuck (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my above vote for "Do Not Support" or "Oppose" - My discussion was based on the nominator's initial recommendation for page changes to (song); after which the nominator added (or EP) to several on the list. [1]. I do not wish to add any further opinion about page changes from (single) to (EP). As I said, my interest was piqued when Square One was designated a "single". Again it piqued when I saw this page request to call it a "song". I'm a little more tepid for any change from "single" to "EP".--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting the move to Square One (EP) or to EP page in general. Duskmoon2005 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose to both song and EP: There is no song called "Square One" so that wouldn't make sense. EP is just as incorrect as a record with two tracks is not considered an EP. I think this release is quite close to a double A-side single. The only titles that would make sense to me are "Square One (single)" and "Square One (Black Pink)" (the latter disambiguation is not commonly used, though). YuckieDuck (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@YuckieDuck: "The only titles that would make sense to me are "Square One (single)" and "Square One (Black Pink)" (the latter disambiguation is not commonly used, though)" Neither are used here, because there is no consensus to use "(single)" or "(Double A-side)" or "(Name of the artist alone)", and it's what here is not understood. There aren't alternatives other than "(EP)" or "(album)" or "(song)". Furthermore, your opposition is only for "Square One"; this doesn't resolve the rest. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 07:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the records have at least three different songs (apart from "Uninstall" and "James II"). I support EP for everything except those two and "Square One". For "Uninstall", the disambiguation "song" would make sense as it is the title track of the single, the same goes for "The Sound of White". As for the ones with no title track and more than two songs, I think all the mentioned alternatives are wrong, but I would say "album" is even less correct than "EP". YuckieDuck (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nahnah4:, YD said, and I cite: "I support EP for everything except [James II, Uninstall] and "Square One". A better rationale is needed from you. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moves to ...(EP). These are neither singles nor songs. Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as follows:
In addition to the fact that WP:SONGDAB specifically recommends avoiding "(single)" as a disambiguator, it's confusing in all of these cases, as that term conventionally refers to a release centering on the song of that title (though other tracks may be included). This doesn't apply to Square One, Zelos, Hades, or James II, which don't contain any songs of those titles. These types of releases are more usually known as EPs, and in fact, sources refer to each of them as such: "...first EP 'Square One...'; "... EPs 'Zelos' and 'Hades'"...; "... second EP, James 2..." On the other hand, Uninstall and The Sound of White both appear to be traditional singles centered around songs of those names that were also released on albums; as such the usual disambiguator "(song)" is better in those cases.--Cúchullain t/c 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing "single" from all titles, there is guidance against it's use and is pretty much a meaningless term now. Prefer moves in line with suggestions made by Cúchullain. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A "single album" is not a term that is interchangeable with "EP"; the South Korean music industry makes a very clear distinction between the two. Only "mini-album" and "EP" are interchangeable in this country. Singles released in physical format are referred to as "single albums" because the Gaon Album Chart is a physical-only chart, and the singles chart is a digital-only chart. This is why Beast's EP My Story failed to rank on the album chart, as it was a digital exclusive. Misidentifying these releases as EPs would only aid in spreading false information and causing confusion. Using the above logic, B.A.P's No Mercy would be classified as its third mini-album in the article in spite of the cover itself even saying it's the first, merely because of the existence of the "single albums" "Warrior" and "Power" (both of which are already idiotically titled "EP"). Confusing, misleading, and entirely false. Ignore the rule when it doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. — ξxplicit 07:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true. "Single album" just seems to be a term used in South Korea for what's more commonly known as an "EP" elsewhere. The risk of confusion is quite high as most English-speakers consider "singles" to be releases of the title song, and in those cases there aren't songs of that title. At any rate, as I showed, sources do refer to "Square One", "Zelos", "Hades" and "James II" as "EPs".[2]--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Korea, the two are distinct releases here. English-language sources refer to them as EPs. Korean sources refer to them as "single albums":
  • "...첫 싱글 앨범 ‘SQUARE ONE’의..." ("..first single album 'SQUARE ONE'...") Osen
  • "...다섯 번째 싱글 앨범 'Zelos(젤로스)'의..." ("...fifth single album 'Zelos'...") OBS News
  • "...싱글 음반인 ‘하데스(Hades)’..." ("...single album 'Hades'...") 10asia
They are even labeled as such on music stores. "Warrior" [싱글] (single), "Power" [싱글] (single), No Mercy [EP]. And again, what sense would it make for the lead of No Mercy to classify the release as the third mini-album when literally everything else (including its own cover) states in the first [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]?
If anything, these "single albums" fit the definition of maxi single than an EP. And as I stayed before, all physical releases (studio album, mini-album, single album, whatever) will chart on the album Chart in Korea. Gaon does not have a digital chart for albums, nor does it incorporate physical sales of singles into its singles chart. This is why the term "single albums" exists in the country. — ξxplicit 02:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the English Wikipedia we rely on what English-language sources tell us. "Single album" isn't a recognizable term for most English-speaking readers, and as we've now established not even all sources for these topics specifically use it rather than the far more recognizable "EP". Describing which release is considered first by various parties is a matter for the article body, not the title, which should follow WP:NCM and WP:SONGDAB.--Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've established the systematic bias that is being pushed onto these non-English topics. And you've yet to explain how exactly these articles will be described in their leads. Referring to them as "EPs" will be false and will skew the chronology of the releases (ie. calling a first mini-album the third, as I've cited above); referring to them as "singles" would contradict the "EP" disambiguator. Sounds like wikilawyering that will create giant mess will be created for the sake of bureaucracy.
I ran into a similar problem before creating Empathy (singles), where I asked for opinions prior to choosing an article title. It's pretty clear that my article, along with those above nominated for renaming, are the exceptions to the rules, not the standards. Why there is a constant push against it, where the facts don't even align with those in support of using "EP" as the disambiguator, is beyond me. — ξxplicit 05:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly not sure how to respond to this. The English Wikipedia uses English.Cúchullain t/c 01:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to EP or song 싱글 앨범 is just the Korean word for EP, it shouldn't appear in English wp at all. Certainly shouldn't appear for the last two which aren't even Korean. So as below:
In each case moving to (song) makes more sense. Particularly in the first 3 where the song differs from EP title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is blatantly false. "싱글 앨범" (single album) is not the Korean word for EP; Korea uses "미니 앨범" (mini-album) for that. Honestly, if you can't read Korean or know anything about the music market, why are you making these assertions? The South Korean music market simply does not work the same as those in the western world.
Korea's national music chart (Gaon Music Chart) does not incorporate digital sales into its album chart, and its singles chart does not incorporate physical single sales (hence its name Gaon Digital Chart). This is why "Warrior" charted both on the album chart (#6), because it was released in a physical format; and the digital chart (#44).
Additionally, your proposals for the first three make no sense. The articles are about the entire release, not just one of its songs. Black Pink's especially doesn't make sense, considerng both "Whistle" and "Boombayah" were simultaneously released and promoted. The cherry-picking in this case goes to prove that those in support are more concerned about pushing guidelines than actually giving a shit about the article's content. — ξxplicit 00:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
After all that talk, 'no consensus’? Jesus... I guess it goes to show, sometimes “good faith” disagreements don’t come to any real agreement here on Wikipedia... like, some days I can’t decide between Blackpink and Red Velvet, I mean, I really like them both, but it’s sort of like wanting cake and ice cream and pizza all at once, or maybe salty chips with banana, which is to me a personal preference though worth trying, I mean, anyobe can whistle while drinking beer, right? Well, to each his own but 적어도나는내가좋아하지않는것을정확히알고있다.«Hungarian Love Song». 내목록에서바로스트라이크. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed.

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Whistle (Blackpink song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs)) 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The time has arrived and I am available to review one of your articles over this weekend and will get on with this one shortly, after I raised the possiblity! --K. Peake 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • The Black Label studio is not sourced anywhere
  • Mention in the opening sentence that it is "for their debut single album, Square One (2016)"
  • "It was released" → "The song was released" and re-word this sentence to mentioning they were released simultaneously as singles from the album
  • "the group's second single album" → "the group's second single album," although this should be sourced in background and composition
  • ""Whistle" was written and" → "The song was written and"
  • "Musically, the song consists of" → "Musically, it consists of"
  • Wikilink drum and bass
  • The booming and exotic quotes are unsourced, although they could easily be replaced with the description that is written in comp
  • "including heartbeats and whistles—alluding to the title of the track." → "including whistles and a heartbeat—alluding to the title." to be more specific
  • "among the best releases" → "among the best K-pop releases"
  • ""Whistle" claimed the number-one position" → "the song held the number-one position"
  • "marking their first" → "marking Blackpink's first"
  • I feel like you should also reference the World Digital Songs position here
  • "the song's accompanying music video garnered over ten million" → "the accompanying music video garnered over 10 million" per MOS:NUM, with the wikilink
  • There should be some info re the synopsis of the mv in its section and then add an overview here, please
  • Pipe Best Music Video to MAMA Award for Best Music Video
  • "with "Whistle" on" → "with the song on"
  • "and continued to promote the song" → "and continued with promotion"

Background and composition[edit]

  • "On July 29," → "On July 29, 2016,"
  • "to be the two title tracks" maybe try something like "first two singles" instead since these are certainly not title tracks nor does the source use that term
  • "Teddy and Bekuh Boom," → "Teddy, and Bekuh Boom,"
  • "Stylistically, "Whistle" has been" → "Musically, "Whistle" has been"
  • Remove overly obvious wikilink on guitar

Critical reception[edit]

  • "garnered generally positive reviews" → "was met with positive reviews" since there is no negative ones here
  • The song titles inside the Rolling Stone quote should be surrounded by singular speech marks instead per MOS:QWQ
  • Put more of the Entertainment Weekly review into your own words; I would suggest re-wording the end part to something like "observed that the song would be suitable for American charts."
  • "opening "Hey boy," it's" → "opening 'Hey boy,' it's"
  • "the 6th best" → "the 4th best" per the source and archive too
  • "feel impossibly fresh."" → "feel impossibly fresh"." per MOS:QUOTE

Accolades[edit]

  • This does not have enough awards to warrant the tables, nor does it to become a section since these can be moved to critical reception and I believe the music video ones should go in its section after the video's general info
  • Pipe Gaon Chart Music Awards to Circle Chart Music Awards

Commercial performance[edit]

  • The 17 million streams are not sourced and if you can, shouldn't it be written out like you did with 10 million for consistency?
  • Ditto for the Korea Music Content Association information

Music video and live performances[edit]

  • Remove duplicate wikilink on YouTube
  • "ten million views" → "10 million views" per MOS:NUM
  • Add some info about the video synopsis, either using any sources you can find or the video itself as a source
  • Pipe Gaon Chart Music Awards to Circle Chart Music Awards
  • I noticed numerous translated sources mention them performing but do not state they performed "Whistle"; please ensure this is included or else remove

Credits and personnel[edit]

  • Looks good, although if there is a studio I would suggest to add here

Charts[edit]

Release history[edit]

  • Good

See also[edit]

  • Good

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks great at 21.3%!!!
  • Pipe Sports Dong-a to The Dong-a Ilbo and wikilink Naver on ref 2
  • MOS:QWQ issues with refs 4, 24 and 48
  • MOS:QWQ issues with ref 10 and pipe Respect Mag to Respect (magazine)
  • Pipe Insider to Business Insider on ref 15
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on refs 15, 16, 34, 35, 52 and 56
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Korea Herald on refs 20 and 41, fix MOS:QWQ issues with the last one too
  • WP:OVERLINK of Gaon Music Chart on refs 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 53 and 54
  • Refs 27 and 28 are not properly formatted as refs with titles
  • Wikilink YouTube on ref 36
  • Cite Naver as via instead and fix MOS:QWQ issues on ref 38
  • Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 42
  • Ref 49 needs a new archive url since the current one is for the Yahoo! consent page
  • Pipe Melon to Melon (online music service) on ref 50
  • Ref 55 needs proper formatting for the access date

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; knew this would not take too long! --K. Peake 10:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all, thanks for you through review once again! Please let me know if I have missed anything. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Pass now, up to scratch with your previous GAs for sure and I only did some brief copy editing! --K. Peake 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Maybe add how long it took for them to make the mv[edit]

Maybe add how long it took for them to make the mv 49.190.52.138 (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source saying how long it took, then it can be added to the article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whistle_(Blackpink_song)&oldid=1216908982"