Talk:SB19

Persistent introduction of deliberate factual errors

The article has been persistently vandalized by WP:UNREGISTERED users, deliberately changing the year of SB19's formation/debut year from 2018 to 2011 or 2012. Multiple cited sources in the article already support the fact that the group was established and debuted in 2016 and 2018 respectively. Below is a table of all revisions that deliberately changed the said information as of this writing:

Revision	Editor	Time & Date (UTC)
1249185950	77.205.22.154	17:28, October 3, 2024
1249186203	77.205.22.154	17:29, October 3, 2024
1249404263	77.205.21.17	18:59, October 4, 2024
1249404524	77.205.21.17	19:01, October 4, 2024
1249404917	77.205.21.17	19:03, October 4, 2024
1249883265	37.165.77.54	10:10, October 7, 2024
1249884037	37.165.77.54	10:17, October 7, 2024
1250569187	37.165.234.40	05:23, October 11, 2024
1250569523	37.165.234.40	05:26, October 11, 2024

Fandom wikis for the group have also been victims of this kind of vandalism (sb19.fandom.com, ppop.fandom.com). This page should be placed under WP:SEMI protection if further deliberate edits have been made. It may actually need protection now since these edits have been consistently made this past week. I'm inviting interested editors and maintainers of articles for this group for feedback. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AstrooKai! Thanks for bringing up the issue. I agree. I think this article needs to be semi-protected with the amount of persistent disruptive IP editing of the page, especially since the article is a BLP with substantial reader interest. Should we go ahead and file a request? – Relayed (t • c) 10:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Relayed! Glad to know you are on board on this. Yes, I think we should file a request considering the number of instances in the past week and the fact that fandom wikis for the group have become victims of this too. It's best to have the page semi-protected temporarily since the revisions are done in the lead section of the page, which is what readers see first. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for page protection at WP:RPP/I. Thank you very much! – Relayed (t • c) 10:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help! AstrooKai (Talk) 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft notice

This is a notice that there is a draft for the 2025 Simula at Wakas World Tour by SB19 at Draft:Simula at Wakas World Tour until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SB19 Ph Arena.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the removal of "Mahalima" as an alternative name for SB19

Although this term was coined by SB19's fandom, it is recognized by the group and even trademarked for copyright in IPOPHL (Philippines) by SB19's company ONEZ ENTERTAINMENT CORP. Notably, the group utilized the term 'Mahalima' during the trademark dispute with their old company during which they were not allowed to use SB19 for a short period of time. Also, multiple reliable secondary sources, including GMA News and Billboard Philippines have used this name to refer to SB19 therefore, the complete removal of this term may not accurately portray the group's history. MPAY009 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

See FANCRUFT. ROY is WAR Talk! 22:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

These sources notes the name exists and has been used by the band, but if it passes WP:PROPORTION is not that clear to me. But it's commented on outside fandom, so there's an argument for inclusion. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: They didn't. It's not worth it to mentioned as a "Also known". It can be mentioned in the sections during their conflict on ShowBT, but the rest I don't think there's a significant on "Mahalima". It feels this is form of fancruft too. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the infobox if it's not in the article text with decent sourcing, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, it's more significant on "Sound Break 19" since that's the real meaning of "SB" on SB19. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding undue weight in the infobox. My reasoning for why this should be included is because the term was not limited to fandom usage, it was used not just by the fans but also event organizers during their previous engagements while SB19's trademark issue was ongoing. Multiple news organizations have used this term to refer to SB19 as well after the name conflict was resolved. See MAHALIMA GLOBAL DOMINATION - ABS CBN News, CONGRATS, MAHALIMA! - GMA News.

Because the term was publicly associated with the group and referenced by reputable independent publications, there is still reasonable argument for limited infobox inclusion alongside proper sourcing. MPAY009 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI here? Please note that AI is prohibited here. Please use your own words. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's still not significant and it's a short period of time. It can be mentioned in their history section, but for the infobox, I am not confident. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound like AI :) I am using my own words. I am trying to condense all relevant information in a single reply so as not to lengthen the thread.

If the consensus is that it does not have enough merit to be included in the infobox, it should be at least mentioned in a section during their trademark conflict with ShowBT. MPAY009 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You can put in SB19 § 2023– early 2025: Pagtatag! and self-management. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

: Sounds good! MPAY009 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting to bring back Mahalima as alternative name. It's still significant as it's still being used at present in news and interviews when introducing the group. It is also still one of their Legal identities so removing it does not really make sense when the name is valid and presently used AnnieReily (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to add, they've used Mahalima as stage name and in promotions (during 2023) more than they've used Sound Break 19. Cyanidecheese (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Cyanidecheese, please refer above the discussion. We already agreed that it'll only add in the section. Also, please refer to the FAQ above this talk page. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, "Sound Break 19" that's the meaning of their "SB". It's more recognizable than "Mahalima". ROY is WAR Talk! 04:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

They have used Mahalima as stage name back in 2023, Sound Break 19 hasn't been used as officially as this name, since they departed from ShowBT Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please check Pagtatag! Documentary for source as well as media outlets use of the name. I is more commonly referenced in news than Sound Break 19 Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It is also note worthy that "Mahalima" is under the trademark of their current company 1Z Entertainment while "Sound Break 19" isn't and is only under the umbrella of SB19 as a name given to them by ShowBT, former company they are not associated anymore. Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, do not edit war here. WP:CANTHEARYOU. We are agreed on this. let it go. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There are other users who don't agree, and have provided valid arguments. Thus, it cannot be called a consensus and still open for discussion Cyanidecheese (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"It's still not significant and it's a short period of time" This argument does not stand as it's still use at present. Agreement consensus should take account the new facts presented as the reason for not including the name does not hold AnnieReily (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, read the WP:PROPORTION per above. Even a new account is still considered a consensus per WP:DONTBITE. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

the argument that Mahalima is fancruft does not hold up given MAHALIMA has been trademarked and used officially by SB19 themselves and by news outlets. Also, if you're keeping Sound Break 19 in the infobox while excluding Mahalima, it is inconsistent with WP:PROPORTION as Mahalima has greater proportional weight than Sound Break 19 in present time. If Sound Break 19 is included in the infobox, then Mahalima has a stronger case under WP:PROPORTION SassQubes (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting that a new consensus be reached based on the opposing arguments in the discussion. Cyanidecheese (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Up for this one. There's enough differing opinions from the earlier consensus to justify another review. AnnieReily (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Who ultimately decides on this? I’m new to this but reading the history and it seemed only a couple of users decided on that earlier concensus and now I see 3 or more users are opposing that decision, decision being excluding Mahalima from the infobox. It’s fair to say, we have already reached a new concensus, right? SassQubes (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:DR has some guidance. At this point, it's probably a stretch to say that there is a consensus. To various new-comers, you know that Mahalima is mentioned in the article now, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If I may ask, what was the basis of the concensus mentioned above?

Also, I don’t see Mahalima in the infobox. Maybe somebody removed it again? SassQubes (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say infobox, because I didn't mean infobox. "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." Of course, that hints that we should kick Sound Break 19 out of the infobox as well. And perhaps that would settle this debate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I assumed you meant the infobox because that’s one of the main issues here. SassQubes (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

And that would make more sense and consistent if we’re excluding Mahalima, then moreso Sound Break 19. But if Sound Break 19 is acceptable to be placed in the “also known as” section, Mahalima has a stronger case as it is more relevant up to this day. SassQubes (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That being said, official aliases are important pieces of information to put in the infobox, as they help wiki visitors identify and cross-reference alternate titles used for the SB19 in other platforms, sites, publications or other forms of media. SassQubes (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We might have to go WP:RFC on this one. To those who don't know what that is, it's a formal-ish discussion that is open 30 days (in general, can be longer or shorter), and it can look like this: Talk:Zara_Larsson#RfC:_Which_image_to_use_as_main?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Please hold for this discussion as they are in ANI at the moment. Also, WP:DONTBITE to them. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I know the ANI is on-going, we'll see what happens there. But it will not decide on article content, that's the job of this talkpage. I don't think I bit any new-comers, but that's me.

Brainstorming a little, an RFC could ask something like this:

Should the alt-name Mahalima be mentioned in the article

• Not at all
• In the article body
• In the body + the infobox

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think an RFC is appropriate while there is active brigading going on. That just basically guarantees there will be no clean resolution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the RFC will finally put this issue to rest. Brigading is happening because editors cannot reach an agreement. Opening this to a wider audience makes more sense at this point. The ongoing ANI may be related but it is a different conversation. MPAY009 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, "Mahalima" is not fancruft. But the intended use of the Alias parameter in the infobox is clearly defined here: Template:Infobox musical artist#Parameters

It's only for alternative official stage names that have been actually used by an act. As far as I know (please correct me with a source if I'm mistaken), during the name-trademark issue, the members of SB19 were billed in performances as "Pablo, Josh, Stell, Ken & Justin" -- not as "Mahalima".

No one is disputing that "Mahalima" is a nickname that is widely used by media to this day, but that's not what the Alias field in the infobox is for. To include it in the infobox, someone must cite a source that states "Mahalima" is an official stage name adopted by SB19, not merely a popular nickname. (And I'll say that 1Z's registration of "Mahalima" as a trademark doesn't mean we can assume that it's an official stage name, objectively speaking. It could just be a related term that they want protected, just like the name "A'TIN" which 1Z also trademarked.)

I also want to highlight that statements that give context to the name "Mahalima" -- expounding on its meaning and uses -- are far more useful and valuable than an infobox inclusion (which oddly seems to have become a misplaced sticking point for some). --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this perspective, highlighting and giving more context to the word "Mahalima" is something I do agree with and might be something worthwhile to add to the page to improve it. My initial disagreement for excluding the term in the infobox was because of it being labeled as fancruft. The term originated from fans but it is not unknown and insignificant outside of fan circles which is what the label suggests.

That being said, they did use Mahalima as an official stage name during the Pagtatag period. Their official artist name on Fusion Music Fest was changed from SB19 to Mahalima. They stated their individual names in events during this period, but has also used this to refer to themselves as a group on stage. This is also the reason why many speculated that they're going for a name change.

The official social media of the group has also used the alternative name "Mahalima" formally in their posts since then to build brand and identity alongside the SB19 name. Added to this that their current company has legally adopted the name. They are known enough by this name that it has been used by reputable sources to address them in public news and media articles even at present time. This fits the description of Stage Name and Pseudonym under Wikipedia, even more so than the expanded name form "Sound Break 19". Cyanidecheese (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The WP:ASPECT should be applied. Assume that there's a reliable sources, does it widely known? Does "Mahalima" consistent in the RS? But, as I am seeing on the RS: for example in GMA News: Speculations intensified during a performance at "Fusion: The Philippine Music Festival" on November 11, where event organizers used “MAHALIMA” in a post featuring all five members. Also from Metro Style: A word created by A'tin (SB19 fans), combining "mahal" (love) and "lima" (five), to show their support for the five-member P-Pop boy group SB19., meaning "Mahalima" is a fancruft word. Take note the word: Created by A'tin, the fandom of SB19. There's no need to go on RFC in fact, the evidences of "Mahalima" is just a fan driven term.

CC: @Mercury McKinnon, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång ROY is WAR Talk! 10:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove "Mahalima" in the article, but "Mahalima" doesn't belong on infobox or lede. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@AdobongPogi, @ArinAstrid: Mentioning for their opinions here based on the evidences. They are the members of Task force Philippine Music. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I read the whole discussion and I can see points from both sides. For me, 'Mahalima' is not really something that should be ignored completely since it has been used in articles, events, and by people outside the fandom too. But at the same time, I do not think this endearment word it fits that well in the infobox because SB19 was still the name mainly used officially and consistently. I think it would make more sense if it stays somewhere in the main article with proper explanation instead of putting too much focus on it in the infobox. Ping me! AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 06:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

okay since your entire reasoning hinges on sound break being more recognizable, when was the last time someone actually used soundbreak to mean sb19? Because if it's more recognizable then it should have been used recently to refer to SB19 right? But no one, not even the media has used it that often. Mahalima on the other hand became th actual place holder for SB19 so many times that the fandom has to be reminded to use SB19 intead if mahalima. ~2026-29504-53 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is BRIGADING here. Anyway, it's the consistency if the "Mahalima" use frequently. However, the evidences here that is created by a fandom, which is a possible form of fancruft. There's no censorship or removing the information here, the "Mahalima" is mentioned under the Pagtatag! and self-management. We don't care if you called them as "Mahalima" on your fandom, we are talking about the consistency of the sources if they are really calling them as "Mahalima", even it's a trademark name, we also don't care about that and there's no relation on this article. For example, Taylor Swift used her pseudonym as "Nils Sjöberg" but it's only mentioned in the section, not even in the infobox or lead prose. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

thats what im trying to say, mahalima is moe consistent in articles and use in live performances and articles to the point of being used as a placeholder when sb19 was banmed from using their name. There is better frequency whoch is your entire argument unless you have a different definitiok of the word. Hardly anyone is going to connect soundbreak with SB19 but people will comnect mahalima with SB19. Why do you hate it anyway? Your premise is proven wrong in real time yet you seem quite stuck woth the same wrong premise, why does it matter so much to you that a name their company trademarked and acknowledged to be a part of them is temovec from their own page? Especially since again the entire defintion of also known as is the name theyre known for which is and hs always been either sb19 or mahalima, so why is it so important for you to remove that? Why are tou wo affected by the truth that you reufse to acknowledge it despite the fact that thete is hardly any articles referring yo sb19 as soundbreak but you'll find consosyent posts and articlex from media teferring yo them as mahalima especially during the legal battle for their name ~2026-29663-43 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

More WP:ADVOCACY here. There's strong evidences above the discussion it's just created by the fandom. Anyway, I'm seeing that it'll mention on the section only, not in infobox and lead prose. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Roy. Yeah, I agree with you in questioning whether "Mahalima" should be in the infobox and lead section. Before anywhere else, it should be first expounded on in the article's body. (I don't get why many are mis-equating the exclusion in the infobox and lead section as if it's erasing/banning it from the whole article. sigh)

I do believe that "Mahalima" has gone beyond fancruft, though. Though the word was originated by a fan as an endearment for the band (mahal + lima = "beloved" + "five" = the fans' "beloved five"), weeks later SB19 incorporated it as a lyric in their song "SLMT". There's the line "mahalima - mahal ka ng lima" (mahalima - you're beloved by five"). Note this is a different meaning from the fan-made one; because SB19 added their own meaning to the word, it shows that SB19 intentionally and creatively absorbed it into their artwork.

But even if it's not fancruft, I still believe "Mahalima" doesn't qualify as an official stage name, so it shouldn't be in the "aka/alias" field of the infobox. (I went into it elsewhere in this thread.) Mercury McKinnon (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: Cyandidecheese has been blocked due to edit war for 31 hours. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not personally or professionally connected nor do I work for the subject of this article. @Royiswariii I request my user be removed under this list as there's no reliable source to support it. The topic is still under open discussion and I have stated my concerns clearly with sources. My edits and replies on the page has always been in good faith. Any incursions I received concerning this topis is on me and something I'll try to mind and improve in the future.Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, there's a evidences per previous ANI. Anyway, I'll not say anything since the ANI is closed and they blocked you for 31 hours. This is a form of brigading even a RfC won't help either. Based on your edits, I am convince that highly involved on "SB19 Wiki Team" and I am not really shock that you will be actively here. Besides, you, ~2026-29504-53, ~2026-29663-43, AnnieReily, ~2026-29277-81, Atinlove5 are the only campaigning, vote stacking, attacking me and other editor, and making the Wikipedia as a battleground.

I really appreciate your edits here but I'm sorry but this is gone too far to you. Your edits here are no longer good faith and not here to work with other editors. To me, I suggest to leave this article and you can explore other articles here. Check WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Pop music, best suitable for you to join here. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The ANI is only for edit warring, it does not provide evidence that I am in any way connected to the article subject as you claim. I am also not entirely against the term being moved to the article section. My concern, as I have clearly stated in previous reply is the reason for moving it. Other users would agree it is not fancruft as initially posited. I have in no way attacked you for stating this concern and the replies I've made are only to explain myself against the unsupported claim about me (that I am personally or professionally connected to the article subject) I am not.Cyanidecheese (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. As someone who has contributed to Wikipedia articles about SB19, I will try to weigh in on the discussion regarding this article in particular. Allow me to catch up with the issue and hopefully reach a consensus. I will review each argument and share my sentiments in a follow-up message. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Mercury McKinnon, AdobongPogi, Cyanidecheese, AnnieReily, and SassQubes: Hi. To provide an executive summary of this discussion to date, we have established that the term "Mahalima" was coined by fans themselves, which some users agree violates the policy WP:FANCRUFT ("Avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans"). Since the term is fan-made, it cannot constitute "official use"; the infobox where the dispute erupted cannot include "Mahalima". The "Also known as" parameter of the infobox is limited to names officially used by the band, as explained by the infobox's documentation. While “Sound Break 19” was retained in the infobox, it is because "Sound Break 19" is coined by the band themselves when explaining the meaning behind their band name, hence its officiality and its inclusion on the infobox, unlike “Mahalima”, which is fan-made.

However, I would like to add an argument as to whether "Mahalima" was officially adopted by the band. Apart from the earlier arguments that Billboard Philippines and GMA News mentioned "Mahalima" was used by event organizers instead of "SB19" due to trademark issues at the time, SB19 have used the term "Mahalima" in one of their songs,"SLMT" (2021) (Lyrics). In the lyrics, it says, "S-L-M-T nang sobra, mahalima, mahal ka ng lima" ("[Thank you] very much, mahalima, you are loved by the five [i.e., SB19]"). I want to hear your thoughts on the band’s usage of the term in that song and whether that would constitute "official use". Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

"For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name in the..." It doesn't matter infobox-wise, but, especially if you have a decent source that says "Hey, they put the fan-name in a song!" it's another reason to have it remain in the article-body. Which I don't think anyone is opposing atm, but I may have missed it. We can also add something (if decent sources exist) about origin/meaning of Mahalima. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Mahalima origin and meaning came from here and succeeding replies shows how the term was progressively used over time. AnnieReily (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

That's the one that made it famous but the birth of the name came from here posted by the same user at an earlier date AnnieReily (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

AnnieReily, doesn't count as a reliable source. Even it's true, we need a strong sources about "Mahalima". (Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it.) The sources are not consistent on mentioning "Mahalima", instead they're referred as "SB19" or "Kings of P-pop". But, assume that it can be include this, the outcome still a fancruft 'cause the origin from a fan. ROY is WAR Talk! 23:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's contributing to the discussion. I've also been looking into how to get "Mahalima" properly reflected in the SB19 article. The term was coined by a fan, but, in my view, the name had gotten beyond fancruft when it was incorporated into SB19's song "SLMT" (released July 2021), as mentioned by Relayed. I'd like to highlight that when SB19/Pablo included "Mahalima" in the song, the name was given an additional/extended meaning, so it's not mere appropriation but SB19 intentionally adopting and adapting it into their work and art.

I've been working on a paragraph about the Mahalima nickname (on and off for days, because I've been taking time to read and watch all sources), and I've now edited in my first version under the Name section. As GGS and Roy have said, I believe that if it's to go anywhere then "Mahalima" should first be expounded on in the body of the article.

Now that that's been done (in two places, Name and Career 2023), there's the original question of the "Aka/alias" field in the Infobox. My position is: No, Mahalima is not just fancruft, but it isn't an official stage name either. There's that one source (The Beat) that reports an event lineup as including "Mahalima (SB19)", but then there's several other sources that do not claim that they performed under that name. Chief of these are 2 GMA News articles that specify that it's A'TIN and event organizers that referred to them as "Mahalima" , plus the Pagtatag Documentary, where the 1Z Marketing head and Justin explicitly say that the intent was to perform using the members' own names, and footage of said use is actually included (time-stamps for the Netflix version are 54:38, 55:49, and 55:53).

So to me what seems fancruft-y/fan-pushed is the wishful elevation of "Mahalima" to the status of an official stage name. The documentary paints SB19's mindset during the trademark issue: they wanted to hold on to the name "SB19", so much so that even down to the last hour before each event, they held out hope that the issue would be resolved. In the meantime, why didn't they just commit (or submit) to the fan-proposed "Mahalima"? Logical answer: they didn't want to. Instead, they negotiated to cling to the SB19 name. (That explanation's OR so I didn't include anything about it in my proposed paragraph on "Mahalima".) Bottom line: it's SB19 that gets to decide what their stage name/s is/are -- not A'TIN, not the event organizers. 1Z's subsequent trademarking of "Mahalima" (in November 2024) means the nickname is valuable to them, but it cannot be assumed to mean it is an alternate stage name; in comparison, "Sound Break 19" is not trademarked. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to all your contributions here. I think someone uninvolved to conclude the consensus here? ROY is WAR Talk! 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've read additional discussion about this topic, thank you to everyone who made contributions and provided reliable sources. Yes, the term Mahalima was created by a fan and was initially used in fandom circles. But presently, it has evolved into a term that's important not only to a small population of fandom. In SB19's original song SLMT the group's official use of "Mahalima" gave significance to the word outside its niche origin. This is akin to them giving additional meaning (Sound Break) to the initials of SB in SB19 despite it initially having a different meaning from previous management.

It is also important that since their heavily publicized trademark conflict in 2023 per Pagtatag! The Documentary, the name Mahalima has been exposed to a larger audience outside of their dedicated fandom. Yes, official news sites often cited the fan-origin of the term, but the simple fact it was concurrently mentioned in public news opened the use of the term to Filipino audiences. It's importance became not only limited to fan circles but also to everyone following the band. Since this event, it has fully breached fandom containment so to say. For instance, it is still used at present by Philippine media to report news about the group to the public. 1 2

The definition of Fancruft is not that it was originated by fans but that it remains unimportant outside the dedicated fandom. SB19 has adopted it in their work officially, PH news media use it as an alternative name for the group. And thus, the term does not violate the rule for this anymore.

Regarding the infobox inclusion and after reviewing the sources, I agree that it has only been used unofficially as a stage name by the group. Use of it in official stage events are only by organizers and brands, not by SB19 (per the documentary). If we're to employ the intended use of the Alias parameter as "For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name..." then both "Mahalima" and "Sound Break 19" should not be mentioned in the Alias field of the infobox. While these are both alternative names adopted by SB19, neither has been technically used to bill them in any stage events for it to be considered official stage name. Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No. The "Sound Break 19" is the short term of "SB". ROY is WAR Talk! 05:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

"Sound Break 19" is the lengthened/expanded name form of SB19. This makes it an alternative name, but not an official stage name. Cyanidecheese (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Still can counted on their alias parameters. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If this can be counted toward the alias, then we would not be employing the official parameter "For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name..." for the article, which currently is the strongest case for the exclusion of "Mahalima" in the infobox Cyanidecheese (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You missed the point here: I'll example BTS again: Their official name is BTS, but they have also other names on Korean name and Japanese name like "Bangtan sonyeondan" and the meaning of inital of BTS is "Bangtan Boys". Meaning, for SB19, it can be counted on their alias parameter as "Sound Break 19". There's no need to remove the "Sound Break 19".

We are talking about the "Mahalima", the removing of "Sound Break 19" is quite off topic. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Another reply by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång has suggested the removal of this as well. It's relevant to the discussion of what can be placed in the infobox based on the official parameters. As for the BTS example (correct me if there are no sources supporting this) but I think it's because they have previously used this as official stage names in Korea or Japan in their rookie years. Meaning they are officially billed as this in the Korean language. The same cannot be said for "Sound Break 19". It has always been "SB19" even under their previous company Cyanidecheese (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

A short term on "SB" will be fine. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes it's fine, but this means it will not be following the official definition of the Alias parameter which is the basis for exclusion of "Mahalima" Cyanidecheese (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It will retain the "Sound Break 19" on alias and prose. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused, do you agree that the infobox can include alternative names that are not official stage names? Cyanidecheese (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the other names should be added in the infobox by default unless verifiable confirm they are actually alternative names used for SB19. I’m not worried if the alternative names need to be an official stage name or not, for my concern is if "Sound Break 19" is really used as an alternative name or just an expanded meaning of SB19. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 06:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's an expanded meaning of SB19 according to sources by @Mercury McKinnon.

Looking at the BTS page as example, this is similar to "Beyond The Scene" - "In July 2017, BTS announced that their name would also stand for "Beyond the Scene" as part of their new brand identity" Both "Sound Break 19" and "Mahalima" are comparable to this from what I see. Unofficial stage names, but still adopted by the group through interviews, official work and promotions. Cyanidecheese (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Because of this Mahalima may not fit the infobox . "Beyond the Scene " was introduced by BTS as a part of their official brand identity and presented as a broader meaning of BTS.

Sound Break 19 is more similar to that example as it was created by the management as a more expanded meaning of SB19. Mahalima was born in the fans in the meantime, and was only later adopted through events (by organizer) and trademark use (according to one source I found).

They used both names later on but they have different origins so I would not consider Mahalima as a direct equivalent for the "also known as" infobox field. If you proof, you may find strong verifiability for that. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 07:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Other users have pointed out the group's official use of the "Mahalima" name in their original song SLMT. Philippine media has also been using it in the present to report news about the group to the public. 1 2

It's also a concern for some that it should satisfy the official parameter of Alias under infobox: "For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name..." Because of this, my stance is that either both be removed in the Infobox or both remain. Cyanidecheese (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The "Sound Break 19" should only retain on the prose and infobox. Pablo also said in an interview with K Street Manila that SB also means “Sound Break,”[...]. It is 100% should retain this on infobox and prose. Their names during their ShowBT era. The “SB” in “SB19” came from the company’s name ShowBT or “sound break,” according to Sejun, the group’s leader. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

AI

Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Please do not remove these tags without actually fixing it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to wiki but I’d like to share ideas.

Those who show concern that the article is AI generated should first present credibility… more like an expert to discuss what’s AI and in which part, including manifestations.

Reason:

Any allegation on this matter can render the page unreliable. Hence, before we create damage to the page, the community must first decide carefully. ~2026-28950-98 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This, this, and other edits by the two users in question -- extremely typical AI output, not subtle at all.

These edits are also old and by people who are presumably not you, so I don't know why you're so defensive here about someone completely unrelated to you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii Afaict you added this template .

Template:AI-generated says "then explain your reasons on the page's talk page.", emphasis in original. The more specic you can be, the more helpful it probably is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead and sections ROY is WAR Talk! 16:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Royiswariii, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! The revisions are getting along -- going in the right direction, I think. With the recent improvements throughout the article, can we reassess if the possible-AI-content tag should still blanket-apply to the whole page or can it now be narrowed down to specific sections. It would also help direct editors to focus on the identified areas of concern. Thanks! Mercury McKinnon (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not great at AI-stuff, consider asking for input at WP:AIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

.

Website in the infobox

@Royiswariii, hello. Do you really think https://merch.1zentertainment.ph/ is a good choice here? We're looking for "The single web address for the act's primary official website. Use {{URL}} as {{URL|example.com}} . {{Official URL}} can be used to automatically fetch the web address from Wikidata.", that's from Template:Infobox musical artist. See also WP:ELOFFICIAL. It doesn't have to be FB, their other official social media can be used too, but sb19.com doesn't seem to be the droid we're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Their merch seems good. But, I don't know if it's okay to add their own website on 1zentertainment.ph since they own that company. But, the social media as a website are prohibited per WP:NOSOCIAL. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

IMO, no, the merch site is not good at all, it sucks for this purpose. There is no content there I consider interesting for the general WP-reader. We want an ok official website, but we're not here to sell their stuff.

Scroll up from WP:NOSOCIAL and read this bit at the top of the section: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:"

Google warns me not to visit the link you provided. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think it's good, then you can revert it. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Royiswariii: Hi! Regarding the website to include in the infobox, I agree with including the SB19 Facebook page, per Gråbergs. Relayed (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Detail

I just noticed that the name "Sound Break 19" isn't mentioned in the body of the article at all. Per related discussion, it probably should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Ha, and I just removed a silly YouTube link from the lead about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you deserve a medal for working on this article and dealing with some of these editors. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi. Could you please clarify what was "silly" about the YouTube link to a radio show interview that I had cited as a source? Aren't radio show interviews fair game? I was just about to add the language parameters that the interview is in a mix of Tagalog and English when you deleted the cite. --22:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Mercury McKinnon (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Mercury McKinnon This:? Looks like could be an acceptable WP:ABOUTSELF source (not that I understand it, but presumably you do), but I wonder if it's a WP:RSPYT copyvio. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, GGS! Thanks for trying to shed light on what Drmies meant. Actually no, this is the source that I had added to the lead sentence (to support that SB19 is indeed also known as "Sound Break 19") that Drmies deleted, describing it as "silly". Could you advise as to what could be wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SB19&diff=prev&oldid=1354030560

  SB19 (2020-03-13). "Friday Mixer featuring SB19". Tribune Now (Interview). Interviewed by Formento, Owen. Daily Tribune (Philippines). Retrieved 2026-05-14.{{cite interview}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

  About the other link you commented on -- yes, that one's possibly a WP:RSPYT copyvio since it's someone's re-upload of a radio station's live broadcast over their official Facebook page from 2020 that is no longer up, since the station only keeps several months' worth of streams publicly available. Unfortunately, many of SB19's early interviews (from before they achieved national and global notability) were on smaller programs like this, so copies now only survive as re-uploads by non-official channels. I ultimately understand if this URL must be removed, though I'll just note that this will be a particular challenge for Philippine digital resources from this period, being a developing country whose digital media was in its infancy. The Philippines is peculiar for being one of the top countries where most of the population is wired/goes online, but where the backend of things was a proverbial "Wild West" still trying to catch up to best practices. The pandemic lockdowns accelerated digital maturity, though, and post-2022 this isn't as much of a challenge. Also, with SB19's rise to prominence, some of the bigger networks/stations have officially re-uploaded SB19's early appearances as years-old throwbacks from their vaults. So hopefully such URLs can eventually be replaced to link to an official one. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  is IMO as valid as a Daily Tribune printed interview, WP:RSPYT is fairly clear on this. And I'm prepared to take their word for it. While YT, like the internet in general, has a lot of stuff that is crap from the WP-pov, there is useful stuff there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for reviewing that Daily Tribune cite, GGS! I'll re-add it to the article then. Since the first part of the Tribune interview introduces the band as "Sound Break 19" (stating the name in full), I'll use the cite to support the "Also known as" detail in the infobox. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I was also about to add a Name section (a paragraph explaining the SB19 name), which was going to include 4 cited sources, of which only 1 is in a written news form, and 3 are in live interview form (so I would have specified YouTube again as the url). I would also have reused the cite you deleted since that live interview also supports their name's origin and other key info (I'm not talking trivia or cruft, which I'm also averse to). If these links to live interviews would also be deemed "silly", how would I reference them in articles? I understand if written/transcribed interviews are preferred over video, but I'm sorry to say that in the Philippines, transcripts of live interviews isn't a thing. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Improvements on the SB19 Lead section

@Cyanidecheese Hello. On . Read your source again, it doesn't make a statement on "why" they are "referred to as the “P-pop Kings”," that is your invention/WP:OR, the writer does not make this conclusion. And it fails WP:LEAD per "summary of its most important contents". This is not summary of article-body content (that's the text below the WP:LEAD), it's expansion on it, and that's the wrong way around on this website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I see your point now about the title. I'll try to find credible sources supporting this, but I don't think it should be dismissed right away. As for the WP:LEAD, do you mean that there should be an article-body content first before writing it in the lead? Cyanidecheese (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. And just because something is mentioned in the article, it doesn't have to be in the WP:LEAD. The article is bigger than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit on the lead summarizing the Legacy section using the article body and multiple references. The title "Kings of P-pop" has been incorporated in this summary. I linked the Honorific nicknames in popular music page to give more context on the usage of such titles. I also used the artist pages listed here as examples on how to properly employ it in the lead section.

If there are any issues or disagreements on improving the SB19 lead section, talk or discuss them here.Cyanidecheese (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii the references are clear and substantive. any suggestions to improve it since you reverted the edit again and cited [[WP:citebomb]] Cyanidecheese (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's indeed a citebomb and excessive sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

removed some refs that's already mentioned in the article body. latest edit now satisfies rule for citebomb Cyanidecheese (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Royiswariii any reason why you unlinked the Honorific nicknames in popular music page? this has been employed in other artist pages that have an honorific title. Cyanidecheese (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I check the other article and seems they link this article so i'll revert my edit. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"Ballad"/"Ballad music" is not a music genre

Hi. In recent days, Ballad music and Ballad have been added to the artist's infobox under the 'genre' parameter (for example, here and here). From those articles themselves, neither is considered a genre of music. "Ballad" is a form of poetic verse that may or may not be set to music, while "Ballad music" (which redirects to Sentimental ballad to disambiguate it from the general poetic form) refers to songs that are often emotional and narrative and which exist in/under most music genres. So there are pop ballads, rock ballads, R&B ballads, country ballads, folk ballads, etc. Ballads in themselves do not constitute a musical genre; "Ballad music" is not included in List of music genres and styles.

Further, compare the articles of artists who are well-known for singing ballads, such as Regine Velasquez, Sarah Geronimo, Martin Nievera, Gary Valenciano, and Ben&Ben. None of them list "Ballad" in their infobox genre. Instead they often have "pop" and "OPM".

Accordingly, I'll be removing "ballad" from SB19's infobox because, as explained, (1) it's not a music genre; (2) it's already covered by the actual genres listed; and (3) it's consistent with the articles of comparable artists. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

SMDC Attendees

I just found out that the SMDC attendees of SB19 is 50,000 only, per reports of Rappler in Facebook. Note that Rappler is a reliable source per RSP. But, there is no article about this. Other Philippine media said it's 60,000 to 100,000 attendees. I doubt because according to SMDC website: SMDC Festival Grounds is a multi-purpose outdoor venue located in Barangay Tambo, Aseana City, Parañaque City. With an expansive area of approximately 100,000 square meters, it can accommodate 40,000 to 75,000 people.

I need your thoughts here: Mercury McKinnon, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Relayed. In solidarity, ROY is WAR Talk! 04:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, guys. The Rappler link that Roy shared mentions "more than 50,000 attendees" so it doesn't actually contradict the "60,000 to 100,000" figure in the current WP article (attributed to Esquire). If you want, we can revise the lower end of the range to "50,000", and add the Rappler reel to the sources (it should be fine even if it's an audio-only report).

(As an aside, Rappler is far from infallible. I've had several personal experiences of reporting factual errors in their published articles to them. My background is in review and quality assurance of material before publication, both professionally and as a volunteer, for local and foreign news/information outlets and also nonprofit organizations. I actually knew some of the key people who started Rappler from our overlapping stints in GMA Network. So I've been quite aware of Rappler's record, particularly their misses. Though Rappler is named as a reliable source per RSP, we shouldn't put them on a pedestal and assume they are "more reliable" or superior to other reputable sources.)

What's more interesting to me is the "40,000 to 75,000" number for the venue's capacity in the SMDC website. My reading of that is it's a baseline or standard figure, but not an absolute ceiling. SMDC Festival Grounds is basically a gigantic open space, so it's highly flexible. That it could accommodate more than 75,000 isn't unbelievable; it would really depend on the configuration of the stage and seating/standing areas. Anyway, I don't think we can question the "100,000" upper end of the attendance estimates since many sources have reported it, unless we have a source that directly disputes 100,000 as a misreported or exaggerated figure. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

SB19 article July 2026 full revamp (Change log)

@Royiswariii, Mercury McKinnon, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi, everyone. This is to let everyone know that I have carried out a full revamp of the article to address the growing concerns regarding prose quality as a whole. Not only that, but I am also expressing my long-term commitment to enhancing the quality of SB19-related articles to at least Good Article status within this year. I will be adding more comments soon. If there are any concerns regarding the change, you may address them here. Relayed (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

appears to have been flagged for AI. Borgenland (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Hi! Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I did see that tag too, and that is most probably because a few of the links I have introduced in the citations have the tracking tag ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in them, which I did not remove originally. Though I will admit, I have used an LLM when scouring a few of the sources (which is discouraged), but human intervention by me was still applied all throughout the time I rewrote the article itself, as well as making sure the sources used are reliable and facts are verifiable. That does not necessarily mean that the article was fully AI-generated; I can guarantee that the article, at its latest revision, can stand as is with WP core policies in mind. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Your enthusiasm is appreciated. However, it would have been considerate if you had made your edits in sections instead of one gigantic block. It's difficult to assess your revamp, particularly for what information has been added and taken out in each section, because comparing versions for changes is now unwieldy with the overly broad extent of your first edit. I'm one for collaborative editing, minding the work of previous and present editors. You seem to have overwritten the writing wholesale in places, even in sections that were fine. I've seen some of your rewrites that I appreciate, and some that I disagree with. I can't revert them easily without undoing all your changes. Mercury McKinnon (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree that section by section or even smaller edits is much preferred. I haven't checked any changes, but a full article revert could probably be argued for, especially if there's AI in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mercury McKinnon and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for raising your concerns. I apologize for not thinking it that way, though I do understand what you mean by that. Ever since the revamps I made for other SB19 sub-articles, like the SB19 discography, List of SB19 live performances, etc., were done the same way, perhaps my thought process is that that was okay. I am open to reverting the edit and pasting everything by block so we can collaborate on cross-checking the contents, if that's something everyone can agree on. Regarding the use of AI, you may refer to my response to Borgenland above. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

For this reason, I will temporarily revoke the GAN nomination for now, and hopefully the nomination can be reinstated soon once settled. Relayed (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not wrong per se, WP:BOLD is the law of the land. But with a somewhat volatile article like this, WP:RECKLESS is worth considering. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, isn't the lead section supposed to be a concise overview of the main article as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Isn't this revamped version a bit too bulky for an introduction? I also agree that doing edits/addition in small sections is better instead of completely rewriting it, as I don't see anything wrong with the previous version of the lead. Cyanidecheese (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cyanidecheese: Hi, Cyanidecheese. Yes, the lead section must be a concise overview of the article, as stated in the guideline: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." And, as the article stands now, it is a concise overview of the band's career, especially their most prominent achievements, and of the most important points the article itself tackles in its later sections. Unlike the lead we had before the revamp, yes, it may be more concise since it is smaller in footprint, but it did not even cover their career history, which is a major facet of the lead, and the guideline states the lead should not tease readers about what follows.

As for it being "too bulky", I would say otherwise. Most Wikipedia biographies, especially those promoted to FA, are a bit more detailed in the lead just because it needs to summarize every section inside that article, including the person's career history. This revamp is modelled after other FAs such as BTS and Regine Velasquez. Relayed (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Year of formation: 2016 vs. 2018

@Mercury McKinnon: Hi, Mercury McKinnon! Regarding this revision, I would have to disagree that SB19 was formed in 2018. While they did debut in 2018, their formation process began in 2016, and not only that, many reliable sources have said so too: Tatler Asia, Rappler, Teen Vogue, and the feature in the physical copy I have of the first issue of Billboard PH. If you can provide basis on your argument, please do so. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Relayed! Many primary and secondary sources attest to 2018 as the year of SB19's formation. Here are a few: Korea Herald, Philippine Star, Rappler, National News UAE

So, given there are secondary sources for both 2016 and 2018, which year should be reported as the year of their formation? It's not original research to examine which of these coincides with — or, on the other hand, contradicts - information from other published sources.

The assertion that "SB19 was formed in 2016" means that a group named SB19 would have existed in 2016 with a different lineup, since this was prior to Justin and Ken joining ShowBT in 2017 and 2018 respectively. It also means that SB19 would likely have ex-members who aren't part of the present quintet. SB19 members have spoken about the group's origin in numerous live interviews and talks, and I've yet to see one where they've said that a group named SB19 existed prior to Ken coming aboard as the fifth member. I'm also not aware of any reports that refer to former SB19 lineups or members (but please correct me if you can).

I'm aware that there were predecessor groups assembled by ShowBT that could be considered "proto-SB19" groups because they included future members of SB19. These predecessor groups did not carry the name SB19, though. There's the original coed batch of 30 accepted trainee-performers named Narra, and there's a 7-member boy group called Paradox. I find it pertinent that Paradox, of whom Sejun/Pablo, Stell, Josh & Justin were members, was fielded in the Pinoy K-Pop Star competition (the preeminent annual event organized by the Korean Cultural Center in the Philippines) under that group name in October 2017. This date is after the 2016 supposed timeframe of SB19's establishment. It's a tougher idea to sell (by Occam's razor) that ShowBT had formed SB19 in 2016 from the trainees who were around (Sejun, Stell & Josh), but pushed a different group in 2017 with the same members — i.e. Paradox, and then "reverted" to SB19 again in 2018. It's much simpler to accept that SB19 was only formed in 2018, when Ken joined c. April, with the group's existence and pre-debut activities (creating SB19's Facebook page and YouTube channel in May, subsequent videos of their early performances as SB19) in the half-year between then and their October 2018 debut being readily confirmable online. As these were hardly newsworthy at the time, I believe we have to understand that primary sources will be more prevalent on this subject. On specific facts as to the timeline of SB19's formation, primary sources are acceptable - and, to my knowledge, primary sources only ever describe one lineup of SB19.

Articles that say SB19 was formed in 2016 are a small minority of secondary sources, in my observation. The greater number of secondary sources and all primary sources support the 2018 year of SB19's formation with Ken's recruitment to be the fifth member. I view reports that date SB19's formation to 2016 as imprecise statements. (Yes, "reliable" news/info sources can still get facts wrong. A lot more often than most people probably think, I might add, based on my experience in quality assurance work for news companies and other publications.) I believe such reports are (mis-)referring to the year when ShowBT accepted the 30 successful auditionees for Narra, which included the first three future members of SB19 - and are conflating that year with the actual formation of the 5-member group SB19 in 2018, composed of Sejun, Stell & Josh from Narra, plus post-2016 recruits Justin & Ken.

As a compromise, we could have the Wikipedia article not give a year of formation, but instead only state "debuted in 2018". But if you ask me, the 2016 vs. 2018 discrepancy is decidable, basing it on which side is supported by clear evidence and plain reasoning: that's 2018. I'd prefer not to lend undue consideration to a very minority claim that contradicts a larger number of credible primary and secondary sources. (Again, I can be swayed if you know of sources that substantiate SB19's existence in 2016. For example, if you could supply a source that describes the members or documents the activities of this supposed previous lineup of SB19.) Mercury McKinnon (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mercury McKinnon: Hi, Mercury! Thanks for the insightful response. I will take a look at this thoroughly. If I can find any substantiated evidence as a rebuttal, then I will let you know. If we can't settle on a particular date for formation, I think, as you've said, stating their debut year instead would be a good compromise. I'll get back to you soon. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mercury McKinnon: Hi, Mercury! I have looked into your argument, and given your reasons, I'm swayed to retain the year 2018. However, I have rephrased the lead to mention their debut year instead of the year they were formed. ("SB19 is a Filipino boy band formed in 2018" -> "SB19 is a Filipino boy band that debuted in 2018"). I think introducing that SB19 was formed in 2018 and later adding that they were initially formed in a talent search in 2016 would confuse readers, so I think it's a good compromise to just indicate their debut year instead in the lead. Also, in relation to this, I want to know your proposition in the second paragraph of "2016–2018: Formation and early years". Let me know what you think. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)