Talk:Gold (Itzy EP)

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Mini album or Studio album?

On streaming platforms, it is promoted as "EP". Even the cover says "Mini Album". So is "Born to Be" album... Thinh Vü Düc 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Born to Be (Itzy_album)#JYPE has revealed Born To Be is actually the 8th mini album and not titled as their second full album as previously thought.. This album as well should be marketed as an EP, per reputable sources: Yonhap News Agency, The Korea Times, Dazed, and Korea JoongAng Daily all call it an EP. That, combined with the fact that it literally says "Mini album" on the cover should be enough proof to call it an EP, regardless of the track length. What we have goes against WT:FORUM. AG202 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done as my personal BEFORE check based on post-release sourcing is evidenced enough on post English and Korean news articles to remove the initial ambiguity of 50-50 sourcing split regardless of languages pre-release. As the article's creator, I have BOLDly moved the article to its current titling aligning with WP:ALBUMDAB naming guidelines. Any disagreement of such, please BOLDly request at WP:RMT for move reversion without WP:PING provided your rationale is valid i.e. my move is deemed to be not following WP:ALBUMDAB naming guidelines and/or you disagree with my rationale i.e. your own BEFORE check shows the ambiguity remains to date. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AG202 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came across another one, from The Hollywood Reporter. I'll maybe add these as sources in the article itself later. AG202 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]