Talk:Illit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 10 March 2024

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. – robertsky (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Illit (group) → ILLIT – The current situation is, the group is commonly addressed as ILLIT (all in capital letters), instead of Illit or its original spelling I'LL-IT (or alternatively I'll-it). The title should go with the name that was commonly spelt and used for addressing the group. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:TMRULES and WP:TITLEFORMAT. Nor is ILLIT considered as acronyms (not that I'm aware of) to qualify under MOS:CAPSACRS and/or MOS:ACROTITLE and/or WP:NCCAPS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: the group's name is not an acronym as far as I am aware and 아일릿 reads as Illit, therefore ILLIT is stylism. Abdotorg (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: MOS:TMRULES. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasons. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 11:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments. The group's name is not an acronym. Random86 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (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.

Requested move 11 April 2024

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: moved. Per consensus, with rationale provided by Malerisch articulating the basis for the moves. – robertsky (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

---

• Illit (group) → Illit
• Illit → Illit (company)

– Comparing the pageview statistics, the girl group is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Wpstatus (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty clear the primary topic is not a defunct Israeli bus company. Ss112 08:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support if anything the group is primary though a DAB might be the best option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom.「HypeBoy」^TALK 01:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the first; Support the second. Support to have a disambiguation page at Illit, considering WP:RECENT and WP:TOOSOON. The South Korean group was just introduced last month in March 2024. Cfls (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, I used to have a disambiguation page that had only two subjects and it was deleted after some nomination based on the supposed criteria that I cannot have only two subjects in a disambiguation and apparently, more than two is suitable. So your stance here might not work out in the sense that we have only two different illit articles, one company (defunct and understandably non-notable) and one girl group from Korea. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think there's anything wrong with a disambiguation page with only 2 subjects (if there is no primary topic), considering that the example given at WP:NOPRIMARY is the page John Quested, which has exactly 2 subjects. However, that would be irrelevant here if we decide that the girl group is the primary topic. Wpstatus (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and I agree with Cfls to have a dab page for Illit instead. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 17:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Arconning (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support Although the group is much more recent than the company, I think that the group's popularity, coupled with the company's obscurity, is enough to make the group the primary topic. The defunct bus company Illit serviced a single Israeli settlement, Beitar Illit, that had a population of less than 50,000. It's on the edge of WP:NCORP: there are barely any (maybe not even five) reliable, independent secondary sources (in English or Hebrew) that mention it in significant detail. In contrast, the group, although recent, already has substantial global popularity—Magnetic ranks #6 on the Billboard Global 200, and it's quite easy to find significant coverage around the world about the group. This is borne out by pageviews: the company received ~8000 views from 2015 to the group's debut [1], a number that the group beats every one or two days. Probably >99.9% of people would be looking for the article about the group, not the defunct bus company, when searching for "Illit". Malerisch (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with you on this, and considering the majority opinion at the present, your reasons are more detailed and persuasive, on top of the reasons for the proposed move. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment To add, most people will not only be actively looking for the group's article (instead of the company's) at the present time, but also for the long future while Illit still meaningfully exists as a group. The same can't be said for the defunct company. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 21:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• After reading Malerisch reasons I change my stance to Support. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 03:16, 17 April 2024 (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.