User talk:Carlobunnie

Welcome to my talk page. If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here and fragment the discussion. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied. For ongoing discussions on talk pages elsewhere, please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} to respond to me directly.

Sources - Soompi / Allkpop

Hello there! I noticed you've recently used Soompi as a source for a recent edit to BTS, and that you left a message on someone else's talk page asking why Soompi is unreliable. You can read through WP:KO/RS for more information on this if you like, and particuliary this section of the talk page for more in regards to Soompi and Allkpop in particular. Alexanderlee (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Where are these decisions usually made? And who are the people deciding them for the rest of us? Like I commented to that Snowflake user, I understand not using AKP for obvious reasons and I don't ever nor have I ever taken their words as any sort of viable news source. But I have to differ as regards Soompi and I wish whoever made/makes these decisions would reconsider. The few instances in the past that I used Soompi as Eng trans sources (prior to being told they aren't acceptable), all the articles I used were indeed accurate english translations of the original korean news articles, which Soompi also linked at the bottom of their posts showing where their news came from. There are ocassions where no english articles whatsoever are available from accepted sites like TKH or YHN (I trawl the sites daily sometimes for news) and Soompi is the only english translation available. Idk what I have to do to prove Soompi's reliability but I wouldn't keep on with this if I didn't believe it's wholly inaccurate to put them on the same level as AKP. Perhaps in the past there may have been articles that decried their being a viable news source but I can attest to the fact that at least as regards BTS their reporting is solid, hence why I believe we should be allowed to use them at least for BTS news.Carlobunnie (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Decissions are made via discussions on the talk page. Soompi don’t always cite where they got their information from, and are too opinionated. If a source is cited in the Soompi article, you can use that as a source, but I’d recommend you translate to make sure it says what information you’re adding. They can’t only be used for BTS, you can’t have one rule for one and another rule for the rest. If there’s no reliable source then there’s no reliable source, that can’t always be helped. Alexanderlee (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: I only talked about using them as an ENG source for BTS because as regards their articles for BTS the news is accurate and reliable, not "too opinionated" like you mentioned which sounds like an over-generalization to me. Also, I'm still new to learning the rules so I asked without knowing that sources go across the board (one rule for all). I always use Kor sources first & translate everything to make sure the information matches so no need to recommend I do that. Sometimes it's just nice/convenient to have an english trans source (saying this based on feedback from people I direct to wiki pages when they ask about kpop related stuff), but I'll leave it alone now. Carlobunnie (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn’t Wikipedia’s responsibility to translate references, if references are cited in another langeuage then users can translate this themselves if they wish. I said “too opinionated” as this was a reason given on the talk page for why Soompi and Allkpop aren’t used. A recommendation is simply that, I wasn’t meaning to insult you if that’s how you took it then I apologise :) Alexanderlee (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: I was thinking more along the lines of since it's an ENG page entry that ENG sources would improve the experience for users. And ik where the 'too opinionated' came from, I chkd that page after you linked it. I didn't take it as an insult, but it came across to me as though you were implying I hadn't been checking translations to be sure of my sources before using them.Carlobunnie (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to imply that. I’ve just seen korean sources being used before to cite information, but when I’ve looked at the source it doesn’t mention what it’s supposed to be citing so I just mention it whenever I mention using the sources cited from Soompi :) Have a good day/night Alexanderlee (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

BTS

Hi,

I didn’t mean to revert your edit on BTS. Your contribution was wonderful. It was just that another user that reverted the article to an edit that wasn’t well-written so I reverted it back. It doesn’t mean that what you contributed wasn’t useful!

Thank you! AhnSoonKyung (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@AhnSoonKyung: The information still disappeared though. I'm all for a more concise, aesthetic display if you will, but the updated info got eaten. Are the records they set with the Japanese single not worth being noted in the section either? We can mention the MDR achievements on the US charts but not the Jpn MD ones? Carlobunnie (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• i had just simply reverted it back to the one before it was reverted, so changes made after that was going to disappear. Feel free to re-add them if you feel they are worthy. -A

@AhnSoonKyung: Sorry if I sounded snippy with you, I was really tired. I forgot reverting a page does that and was gonna add it back myself today but I saw you did it already so thank you Carlobunnie (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: I Need U (BTS song) has been accepted

I Need U (BTS song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

She changed

You changed my post StudySandra (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: Yes. Because it was incorrect. The infobox for singles has a specific format to be followed. Your edit did not fit the template format. The date you inserted was also incorrect. Even if I didn't change it, another editor would have. I just happened to be around to see what you did. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay let me say a thing

It's was released on November 24,2017 not on September 18! StudySandra (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: The Music Video was released in November. The SONG was released in September, which is what the date in the infobox is for: song release date, not mv date. Please do your research properly and understand what it is you are editing before making any yourself. Or you can post on the talk page of the article if you have an issue w something stated in the article and get a response from other editors before changing something prematurely. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Aisshhh I forgot

I should remember that but the date was teaser of the song? And I am new here !StudySandra (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: The date was the worldwide release date of LYH that Mic Drop was first released on as the intro paragraph states. That's the date that will show up in the infobox. And yes I know you're new. That's why I said it's best if you ask first about a change you want to make/do proper research to make sure your edits won't be undone if they're inaccurate. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

These changes were necessary

If you click into "Billboard charts" link in the MIC Drop article, you are directed to a page about normal billboards, not even the magazine. --Mateusz Wijata (Talk) 08:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@MatiW97: Well strangely enough, yesterday my browser was directing me to the Billboard magazine page (I checked before reverting) which was why I undid your edits (because it didn't make sense why you'd link to a diff BB page when I was seeing the right one) so that was the cause for my mixup there. I would never purposely undo a correct edit. Checking back the history today, it opens to the page you mentioned so I have no idea what my browser is doing tbh. I will point out however, that you were still linking to the wrong BB chart article but another editor fixed it with the right link. Thanks for reaching out though. - Carlobunnie (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank you too for the reply. Anyway, my browser also sometimes shows me the wrong revision of a article after clicking, even if it was reverted... --Mateusz Wijata (Talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that her block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Carlobunnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22109 was submitted on Jul 18, 2018 14:17:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the controvercy part of the bts page. It was based on an article filled with misinformation and propaganda. I made an article just to thank you so thanks! Chocoaddickted (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chocoaddickted: I'm fully aware of where that article came from and who provided it to that site in the first place so I was quite surprised to see it here. No need to thank me but the sentiment is appreciated. Have a nice day! - Carlobunnie (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

controversy section

I saw that you had originally taken out the section so I thought I would come to you. I was looking at the BTS talk page and there are a few people who seem quite adamant that the controversy section and what is written should be included. While I understand the desire for neutrality, I'm concerned as I know that the source which the Simon Wissenthal Center made their statement based off of is unreliable. Those who think the section should be included said it was because the issue is being reported by reliable sources, but the problem is that those sources are reporting based off of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who made their statement based off the words of a pretty alarming source. Is there anything you could do to convince those who want the section to at least wait until the issue with the center has been cleared up? I know many people have contacted the center to try to inform them about the situation. 128.230.137.235 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Tamar Herman,(@TamarWrites on twitter) who is an experienced writer and is jewish herself has voiced her concerns about the Simon Wissenthal Center's statement. This isn't much, but would the fact that actual journalists are concerned about what is being written in these sources help support the argument against including the controversy section as it is, or at least delaying its inclusion until the matter has been cleared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.137.235 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes I saw Tamar's comments under the SWC post and while I don't know how much weight journalists' concerns would carry on here, the whole thing in general is really a cause for concern. Reminds me of the BP DDD yt record issue a few months ago when Forbes published an article (based on an unreliable source) and ppl were in an uproar over subsequent the edits being removed, insisting it was acceptable because Forbes wrote about it, conveniently ignoring the fact that the reliable outlet's source wasn't reliable at all. The premise is the same lol. I did offer my two cents in response to one of the seemingly more civil editors who weighed in on the matter, and suggested we wait until more unbiased information is made available and SWC publishes their updated statement. Hopefully this will all be resolved calmly then. I don't object however, to a controversy section being published because the situation is what it is and, with the amount of attn it's received, warrants being mentioned in the wiki article. I just believe it's wiser to wait a bit first, but we'll see how things go I guess. - Carlobunnie (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Carlobunnie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boy with Luv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: your recent edit on I Need U

Hello Carlobunnie, thank you for contacting me. I checked BTS albums discography chronology and found the 5th August 2017 revision when the BB PH chart peak was added to I Need U: it was #79. Two days later, an IP changed it to #77, and in fact they were right, but put the wrong source link, XD. I've also found the archived chart to support its peak at #19. The following week it fell behind at #56, so I don't think it charted higher. I'll update it at once. Bye. --Chiya⁹² 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Uploading single covers

Thanks for uploading the regular edition cover of "Lights"/"Boy with Luv", but it's been replaced with a PNG, which is the preferred file format for album and single covers. I've also switched the use of the regular edition cover to "Lights" (as that is the song that is listed first in the double A-side listing), and the cover that was on Lights (BTS song) to Boy with Luv so we don't have two covers on one article. In future, you should convert JPGs to PNGs before uploading (which can be done using most image editing programs, including Microsoft Paint), or there are websites that can do it for you. Ss112 04:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Exo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft

I've redirected draft + draft talk to the main space, I hope everything is okay, I included your most recet edits like image swap at the main article now. The most recent talk is now available at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by BTS#Rework of Lede so edit only at main space now, no point of having two different updating articles. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Is there any particular reason why none of the talk section from the draft prior to the lede rework section didn't transfer across? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it needed? Everything was resolved there so I included only those last two sections since the page was huge, but I can re-add everything if you want, though the current content at BTS talk would need to be archived then. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: yes please re-add it. I think the history is good for anyone who may come later on asking about anything we covered in those sections (and that's honestly what I thought you were gonna do when you did the initial move). Archive everything prior to the 'possible page revamp' section that I started off this whole thing with. That way all discussion related to the revamp is easily available, at least until after FL review is completed. Then we can archive any additional talk sections. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Snowflake91 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Bring The Soul Movie page

Hi. Thanks for contacting on the talk page of "List of awards and nominations- BTS". Saw that you updated the attendance figures for Bring the soul movie page. Just wanted to show you that recently Forbes, Billboard (among a few other reliable sources) released the updated figures for the Box-Office figures worldwide for the movie Bring The Soul. Just check if these figures could be added and updated in the main page. https://www.forbes.com/sites/caitlinkelley/2019/08/28/btss-bring-the-soul-film-broke-records-after-grossing-243-million/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/bts/8528616/bts-bring-the-soul-the-movie-attendance-numbers --Chimmy87 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Chimmy87

@Chimmy87: the update you made (and then undid) was fine because the information and sources are good. I really only was referring to edits you would want to make on the list of awards/noms article. You can go ahead and update whatever other figures/info on the movie page that the sources support. If anything is amiss someone will tweak your edit accordingly :) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Okay. Thanks. I am updating the figures then. :) Also, was there any specific reason to revamp the list of awards and nominations by BTS page to a new format and leave out the awards of lesser media coverage? Just asking. Chimmy87 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chimmy87: the answers to both your questions can be found here. I was on the page one day in June and it occurred to me that it wasn't very easy to read with all the little tables for each award that weren't even alphabetically arranged and one had to constantly scroll up and down to find something in particular, so I checked out the list pages of some other famous musicians, came across a few that were all in one and went to the talk page to ask about redoing it. Other editors agreed with me and it was brought to my attention that the new wikipedia standard for lists (especially featured lists or articles hoping to make featured list status) was the all in one table. Roughly one month later here we are. The awards that didn't make it into the new table didn't meet wikipedia's notability requirements as the earliest discussion shows (and some later down as well). Wikipedia lists are not meant to record every single award won, nomination received, or poll topped (that's what fan run blogs & sites are for). While it might be nice to see lots of awards written out for any artist not all of them are encyclopedic/worth mentioning. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: That's good. The previous layout is mostly followed for all other K-pop groups even though it's clumsy. Could those pages use a revamp as well?- just to make everything concise and easy to read.I have noticed that the page for the list of awards and nominations for Twice contains citations of Soompi, Twitter and YouTube links among others. A few awards don't have citations at all. Any thoughts? --CY 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chimmy87: another editor, Facts Spiller actually asked me the same thing and this was my reply. If you have the time you can start searching for reliable/replacement sources as per WP:KO/RS and hopefully other editors who maintain the Twice page will be interested in helping you improve its current condition. Sadly way too many k-pop related pages on wikipedia are poorly or unreliably sourced so it'll take a LOT of work to bring them up to scratch. I'd start fixing some myself but right now my focus is on the BTS page first. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BTS (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

BTS' SPS Units

Hello! I hope you are doing great!

Yesterday, Billboard released this article [1] which gave the equivalent album units for Love yourself: Tear and Love Yourself: Answer:

"As of Sept. 19, 2019, Love Yourself: Tear has earned 639,000 equivalent album units in the U.S. while Love Yourself: Answer has earned 1.07 million equivalent album units, according to Nielsen Music".

In BTS' pages, generally either RIAA certifications or pure sales are added. Can you suggest where this data can be added?

Facts Spiller (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

BTS page

Hi. I noticed that the very recent edit, made by someone, removed some info from the lede like "Princes of Pop" that was given by Time. I don't know why it was removed since Exo's main page lede contains facts like "Kings of K-pop" and "biggest boy-band in the world", so why shouldn't BTS's page have facts like these? I think the lede prior to this edit was much better and comprehensive. I have noticed that you maintain the BTS main page. Would you mind reverting it? Thanks --Greninja7 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Greninja7: iirc that particular information was removed because their inclusion was not properly supported by the citations used to justify having them on the page. The exo article has good sources so it's allowed there. I'd have to check back the BTS page history to say for sure. But if it really is as I remember then the only way that sort of thing could be included again is if the sources used to back up the names are reliable enough and they clearly state BTS being called such. I'm not in a position to check at the moment though. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The 2019 section under the Career section hasn't been updated yet, like the US year-end lists have been published and BTS ended as the top-grossing touring artists. Five of their albums are on the top ten world year-end chart. Can these edits be made? Thanks. --Greninja7 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

PNG vs JPG

Hi. Regarding your image reversal on Map of the Soul: 7 ~ The Journey ~, where can I find the project policy regarding file formats? I opted for the JPG purely on the image quality basis. —capmo (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Capmo: sorry for the late response to this. Honestly, I can't recall seeing anything specified on the MOS for Albums or Songs, or on their respective infobox templates, but I could have missed something right there for all I know. I've only ever uploaded 2 images for album art, INU in 2018 which was in jpg format and accepted wo issue, and then one for Lights in 2019, also jpg format, which was changed for a PNG format file instead. I just repeated to you what Ss112 had told me before because he's way more knowledgeable on these things than I am so I took his word for it, and I've also seen other long-time editors say the same thing. The best I can direct you to (and what I've been going off of) is this, particularly where it states "...PNGs allow further editing without degrading the image.", aside from the general policy. I don't know when or where exactly the consensus for PNG over JPG occurred as regards album art (discussion usually happens somewhere on WP but not everyone is usually aware) but maybe Ss112 can clear it up for us so we know clearly going forward? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. I agree that PNGs are great for non-photographic images, but only if they can be generated from the original (digital) image. It doesn't make much sense to convert a JPG into a PNG. The JPG format is lossy, and a PNG generated from it won't be any better than it. In this case specifically (Map of the Soul), the JPG looks way better, that's why I'm insisting on it for the article. Regards, —capmo (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Stay Gold (BTS song) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Stay Gold (BTS song). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Power Radio Summer Awards

Hi, would you help me add this event to the Blackpink Awards? Thank you. Here is the source: https://www.wearepoweruk.com/summer-awards-2020.html Ghostintears (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that nomination should be added to the table. That is a non-notable radio station award. It does not receive extensive coverage from reliable secondary sources and iirc was removed from an older version of the BTS awards article for those very reasons. Carlobunnie (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, aside from that, you should update the rumor, for example the Soribada Awards. Would you be kind enough to update it? Thank youGhostintears (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. But please don't forget what I told you about other awards you've left in the table ok? You need to find good sources for those or they'll have to be removed too. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry. When you update the table, notify me, so I also update it on the Italian Wikipedia. Ghostintears (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I updated the table. Carlobunnie (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 🙂 Ghostintears (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Meus Prêmios Nick nominations have come out. Can I add nominations to the Blackpink Awards entry? Ghostintears (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostintears: yes as long as it's supported by a reliable source! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

http://nickalive.blogspot.com/2020/07/nickelodeon-brazil-announces-meus.html

Here is the source. I see that the BTS have also been nominated. Ghostintears (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostintears: ah I think you should wait a bit to update the table because the nick blogspot page isn't considered a reliable source. If you can find a news article about the nomination that would be better. I won't update the BTS article until secondary sources mention their nom. Carlobunnie (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: So let's do this: When you find the reliable source I will add it. Ghostintears (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostintears: I updated the blackpink table with the MPN 2020 noms and made another adjustment to the previous nominations. You'll see the note in my edit summary. Carlobunnie (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Thanks a lot, now I edit it also on the Italian voice. Ghostintears (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Update to Blackpink awards articles (Eng+Ita wiki)

These days I am not meditating much, only small changes. However, I corrected some corrections on the Italian page. -- Ghostintears (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For rescuing me literally every time with some tricky copy-editing. ;) Have you considered joining the GOCE? Ashleyyoursmile! 17:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Myx Music Awards 2020

Apologies for reverting you, but it seemed the cleanest way of getting rid of the rest of the IP's garbage. I've posted at WP:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level. Narky Blert (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: it's totally fine. I only just realized my revert hadn't caught everything. And yeah, the page has been suffering from a LOT of vandalism. I really don't get why but hopefully now with the protection req it'll ease up. I was literally losing my mind with all the annoying disruptive edits from the ip's. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. The IP is a rangehopper on Asian Vision in Makati/Batangas, Philippines. A rangeblock might result in a lot of collateral damage. Fortunately, they seem to have a one-track mind. If they register an account and start getting round the block that way, {{ping}} me. I know how to post about abusive accounts at WP:ANI. Narky Blert (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: the page was unprotected and it's been repeatedly vandalized since. I just checked it. Think you can request increased protection this time? I didn't do a location check on the ip but I'm assuming it's very much like the one above if not the same. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It turns out that the latest batch of edits by the 223.25.26.xxx IPs since protection was lifted resulted in no difference whatsoever; so that's a relief. Both those IPs were blocked for a week on 31 August (click on their IPs in the edit history to see; by a different admin to the one who protected the page), so the page should be safe for now, and there's no immediate need to protect it. Keep your eyes open; but let's hope they get bored and give up. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bts are legends that wont come 2 times

BTS ARE LEGEND AND POWERFULL THEY BROKE ALL THE LANGUAGE BARRIERS AND I LOVE THEM HAPPY BIRTHDAY JUNGKOOKIE CONGRATS ON NO1 BILLBOARD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.22.204 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This might be too late to say this, but you should put that message on Twitter or other social media platforms instead of Wikipedia. SmallPotato ^talk 04:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You have helped me multiple times and I always appreciate your kindness and the work that you do across Wikipedia. So I'm going to thank you by leaving it here. Please keep up with your amazing work. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 04:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

J-Hope

That's what I thought too, but firstly, pretty much every article i've come across uses 'the', and secondly, you wouldn't say 'I formed boy band BTS', you'd say 'I formed the boy band BTS', so I think 'the' should be there. --SacredDragonX (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@SacredDragonX: idk if it's an American Eng thing vs a British Eng thing or something else, but I've seen sentences like the one in question written both ways and they're also grammatically correct that's why I said it didn't need to be changed. "Naya Rivera was a cast member of American TV show Glee", "Justin Timberlake made his debut as a member of American boy band Nsync", or "He is known for being the founder of (or a founder of or one of the founders of) American tech powerhouse Apple Inc." - those sentences aren't incorrect and we've heard them on tv and see them written in articles countless times. Check the lead for Chad Kroeger, his is the quickest that came to my mind because I read it recently and knew I'd seen the particular wording used here before (though I'm not saying his article is the standard for anything). You are correct that a lot of WP articles use it (I checked after you mentioned it) so I guess change it back if you want, though I still think the sentence works fine as is. And your 'I formed...' eg wouldn't be applicable as the phrasing of the sentence and what it implies is completely diff to the j-hope one. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Hello, thanks for the reply. I disagree that my example wouldn't be applicable here, and I think that even in your examples it would be better to use 'the', because you wouldn't say 'I am the founder of company Apple'. You would say 'I am the founder of the company Apple', right? --SacredDragonX (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@SacredDragonX: The reason I said your eg wouldn't apply is because jhope's sentence isn't about him founding or forming the group, nor it is him writing the sentence about himself, so you can't read/write it the same way one would read or write a first person sentence ie. the 'I formed' that you're going with, when the sentence is written in third person. It's describing him from a third person perspective as being a member of a group ('South Korean boy band' simply specifies the type of group), just like how I wrote the Naya Rivera sentence (you left out the descriptive 'American tech...' part in your reply using the Apple example). I'm sorry I can't explain this more clearly with proper linguistic terms and such. Even though I have an Eng degree my memory is really bad so my brain will tell me x is wrong or y is right but it won't recall the specific rule that justifies that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faded (Alan Walker song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't update Incorrect peaks

I noted you usually updated Dynamite (BTS song) Billboard Pop Songs chart peak to 13, I don't know what are you do?? Before peak reach here, I remind you again, don't update Incorrect peaks, or I will regarded as a Vandalism edit, and report you to administrator, attention! Tim96144 (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tim96144: my edit history shows no vandal-like activity in all of my time here on Wikipedia so kindly don't throw that term around unless you have actual concrete proof an editor is in fact vandalizing a page. And fyi, the only reason I undid your edit is because I thought the #13 peak was correct. I wasn't even the one who added that position to the table in the first place, but when you changed it to 14 I thought it was a mistake because 13>14 so I undid it. You'd look foolish reporting me because I would've explained this to anyone who asked and they'd also tell you it doesn't constitute vandalism. You'd waste an administrator's time for nothing. Next time ask first. Jesus. It's not that hard. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Billboard charts history showed peak is 14 ,you must update to 14 , rather than 13, why does you think that is correct? Please obey the rules. Tim96144 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tim96144: Did you even read what I replied to you above? I already explained myself, very clearly. I didn't put the 13 in the table. Its been there a while and no one changed it so I thought it was correct i.e. I thought that's what the chart source said, which is why when you changed it I undid your edit. I never said I think putting a wrong chart position is correct and I didn't purposely do it to vandalize anything. If you don't/can't understand English properly please use a translator or ask someone who speaks your language to assist you because this is starting to annoy me. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.billboard.com/music/BTS/chart-history/TFM Does it peak 13 on "Dynamite"?? Unless it reached that, or don't updated Are your's updated times were more times than me at Billboard charts?? If you don't understand, don't be know-it-all Tim96144 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tim96144: kindly stay off of my talk page. I've explained myself twice and you're still going on about this. Please leave me alone now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

V BTS and Jungkook

re: - onehallyu.com KOMCA Masterlist 2020 V has been credited with the copyright of 12 songs as Co Composer Co Writer. Jungkook has 10 songs. Magic Shop was Co Composed and written by JH, JK, RM and Suga Love is not Over was Co Composed and Co Written by Jin and JK. Singularity won Best Choreography in 2019 at the 14th Soompi Awards. After that V was officially acknowledged by Son Seung Duk as part of the Dance line. There are two YT clips. "BTS V Officially part of the DANCE line" and "Guide to BTS new danceline" As per Starmometer V has won Asian Heartthrob 3 years in a row and has been entered into their Hall of Fame. Starmometer has a website. As the Visual of BTS he has won many Handsome Man in the World Titles. Sweet Night was Co Composed and Co written by V as per KOMCA and has broken Adele's record as per genius.com/V-bts. After lyrics scroll down to "How was song recv'd. What records did it set" Click. and tada......#1. ITunes Songs Chart in #117 Countries. V has set records on every platform the evidence is easily attainable. I have donated to Wikipedia on the premise they have accurate and up to date information. TV Korean Entertainment Kpop channel on YT has a ton of information with reliable sources for BTS members. V has records on all platforms from China's Super Topic, Baidu, Weibo, TicToc, Twitter, Instagram, YT, Twipple, SoundCloud, Spotify and ITunes. He's the Stan attractor, Out of Stock, Idol of Idols for a reason. He deserves to be acknowledged fairly, they all do. 122.57.70.169 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Onehallyu is an unreliable source as per WP:KO/RS. His writing credits are already listed in his article under the Discography section. Same for Jungkook. The best choreo award for Singularity was awarded to V and it is on his article under the accolades section. Being called something by one's choreographer and fanmade compilation videos are not encyclopedic content. That would fall under WP:FANCRUFT. Same for the Starmometer poll wins. Having a website doesn't make something notable/reliable either. Fan voted polls about his handsomeness are more fancruft. Genius is not a reliable source as per WP:RSP. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for further clarification. If you still have an actual valid request after you've read the pages I've linked then you can leave me another msg. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

M Countdown charts

Hi there! I saw your edit summary and I will be changing the sources within 24 hours. Thank you for letting me know. :) EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: thank you for the msg. Also, just so you know, there's no time limit on how quickly you need to change the sources, just so long as you do change them. You don't have to get it all done within 24 hours so don't worry about that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed all sources from Soompi and added sources from other articles in the 2019 chart. I would really appreciate if you could review it. EN-Jungwon (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I just woke up so give me few to org myself and then I'll review for you in a bit ok? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll be back in 8 hours. It's time for me to sleep. EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I made some changes to the page and left notes for you in the edit summaries. I know the page isn't complete yet so I'll check in on it from time to time to see how you are coming along and if anything needs fixing. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help 😊. Happy editing EN-Jungwon (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Question: Can YouTube videos which announces the winners from the official channel be used as a source. EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: yes, IF the video is an OFFICIAL upload by the music show channel. You'd use the AV media template to cite it. You having trouble locating article sources? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am having some trouble with locating sources. I guess I'll leave it for another editor to add. And I have also added sources to the 2020 article EN-Jungwon (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I'll show you how to search for sources. Here is the Naver news search section where you should enter the hangul name of the kpop artist (I have the hangul for BTS entered as an example) you want to find sources for. The hangul can be found on the artist's main wikipedia article. Copy and paste it into the search bar at the top of the page along with the hangul of the music show title (I have a music festival title for my search). You'll see options to select a date period that you want to find articles from. After you enter the period you want, click or tap apply and the search will pull up all articles about the artist within that period. I usually sort it to display oldest articles first so I can see the first news piece that was written. If it's not from a source I consider to be reliable, or as reliable as others, then I scroll through until I find one I prefer to use. I'd recommend searching with Chrome browser as it will translate the korean pages for you and make searching much easier. Msg me again if you run into any issues while trying to search. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It works. I use to search for sources on Google. Thank you so much for taking your time to help me out. 😊 EN-Jungwon (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: no problem at all :) When it comes to korean music show related news, Naver is always the best bet. Google is good for everything else. Feel free to hit me up with any more questions. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Carlobunnie, it's been a long time since we crossed paths. Just wanted to drop by and thank you for teaching me how to find sources. I don't know where i would be without knowing how to do that. Sorry for writing this in the middle of the section EN-Jungwon 16:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have sourced the 2020 page. EN-Jungwon (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I left you some more notes in my edit summaries on the 2019 article today. I think you should read them before you continue adding any more refs to that table. I'll check out 2020 in a bit. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we add links to the YouTube video of the winners announcement? It would be easier to see the score EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: lol I actually just said in the edit summary of my most recent edit on the 2019 list that I'll probably start citing the broadcasts for the score mentions. Just remember, if you're linking to an actual video it must always be an official upload. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I should read your edit summaries more carefully. So I will start with the 2019 article first. EN-Jungwon (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: remember to use the cite AV media template when referencing online videos or the actual broadcast ok? And if you have some time, check out the drafts I made for the other years and lmk what you think. I'm currently flitting between 2015+2016. I'll add a few sources to both, move them to main space and then anyone will be free to fill in the remaining references. It'll take too long if I wait to source both tables completely and then publish them as articles so I'm gonna do it the way I said instead. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry I'll help you out. We are doing this together 😊 EN-Jungwon (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am having some trouble with AV media template. Could you insert an example into the 2019 article January 10. Here is a link from Mnet's official YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtD0GUPSXvQ EN-Jungwon (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: np, just added it to the table. I had to play the video at the slowest speed to catch the showing of the score before the win flashed over it on the screen, so you might have to do the same to double check the numbers match (tho they obv do). Carlobunnie (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we name the articles like this "List of M Countdown Chart winners (2016)" since other music show articles are also named like that List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020) EN-Jungwon (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I actually had a reason why I named the drafts the way I did and I was gonna talk to you about that after I'd woken up. I didn't realize you named yours based on pre-existing articles. I can adjust the titles if you prefer but I don't agree with the wording. The chart doesn't award the songs that top it, the show awards the songs that top the chart, so to me it made less sense to put "Chart winners" in the title when I could just name it MCD Winners, although, the terms chart win/show win are pretty synonymous with each other in the context of the show. Idk if I'm explaining properly what I mean or if my brain is making this more complicated than it actually is. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that I didn't understand most of what you just said but since you are more experienced I will let you decide. Or we could ask other editors. Judging by your contributions, it looks like you slept for 4 and half hours which sound to me like it's not enough. EN-Jungwon (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So have you decided yet? I think we should change it to keep the consistency with other music shows EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: woke up like 10 mins ago. And yes, I'll change the titles but I do think the wording of the lead's first pgraph will need to be adjusted for all the lists though. I'll show you what I mean when I figure out how it should be adjusted. Gimme a few mins and I'll move them one by one. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2015 article is now sourced. EN-Jungwon (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: good job with it. I'll get back to reviewing after I adjust the list names. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's me again. Just a message to let you know that the 2016 article is now sourced. Thanks... EN-Jungwon (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: just made one change to the 2016 page re: the archive url you used. I didn't think to explain this when I did the first cite AV media example for you but now I see that I should have. When you archive using that site, I see you use the 'short link', eg. http://archive.today/3ZOv0. But what you actually should be using is the 'long link' i.e. http://archive.today/2020.11.12-055805/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndDreQjm00A (which is the change I made just now). 2 important things to note when using the long url: the "http" part at the beginning must always be changed to "https" and the dots and dashes in this part "2020.11.12-055805" should be removed. So the archive-url entry should look like this instead -> http(s)://archive.today/(20201112055805)/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndDreQjm00A (the parts I changed are in brackets). Now there is a bot that will eventually pass through at some point and change it even if you don't, but I've found that it's good practice to enter everything properly from the get go if you can. As helpful as bots are, sometimes they break things and we don't realize because we take for granted that whatever fixes they make work just fine. I know I haven't been on the pages in a while but I promise you I haven't forgotten them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The archive links for the YouTube videos doesn't seem to work. The videos aren't playing at all. EN-Jungwon (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: don't worry about it, they're not supposed to work unless you go through all the complicated steps to reupload the entire video on wayback. Archives for music videos are just proof of the link that we're referencing. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am having a lot of trouble adding the episode numbers to the articles. Should we just leave it like how it was in the article. EN-Jungwon (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: if the older seasons of the show ran by date rather than episode like the more recent years then we can just exclude the episode # column altogether. Date column would be first instead. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it ok to use IMDb for the episode numbers? EN-Jungwon (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I honestly don't know. You'd have to ask another editor about that. Maybe the one who did the inkigayo articles that you showed me? I don't remember the username right now but maybe they'd be able to advise you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any sources for older episodes on Naver. What should we do about that. EN-Jungwon^Talk 10:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: we can cite the episode broadcast itself as a reference but idk if it's okay to have an entire article sourced that way. Maybe you can ask on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea talk page? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Blackpink MAMA 2020

Blackpink ai mama 2020 were also nominated for song of the year with HYLT, artist of the year and Worldwide Fan's choice: https://www.bandwagon.asia/articles/bts-iu-hyukoh-blackpink-twice-nct-exo-seventeen-nominations-list-nominated-for-2020-mnet-asian-music-awards-kpop-2020-mama Blink03 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: yep I know. I only did a cleanup of what another editor added earlier when noms came out. I'm currently working on something else atm so I'll do it when I'm done. Thanks for the note. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Casetify Edits

Why are you removing factual information from the casetify page? I saw you made the page bare bones and asked for expansion. Can you add any edits to the expansion, instead of reverting it to a stub article?Degrassifangurl (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Degrassifangurl: I think you have me confused with someone else. Please check the casetify page edit history. I only did a minor cleanup on the article, i.e a tag removal+one word change, and haven't touched that page since. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off accusatory. I am trying to add info into the article from where you left it, so it's not so bare bones. But it keeps getting reverted. Do you mind helping?Degrassifangurl (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Degrassifangurl (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Degrassifangurl: your best course of action here would be to talk to the user who has been reverting you. I don't think you fully understand why the information you want to restore isn't being allowed. Reach out to them and find out what information would be allowed on the page to help expand it and maybe explain that you don't have a paid connection to the article because that's part of the reason why your changes are being removed. I unfortunately can't really help with this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

If a wikiproject's page is not very active, where else is a suitable place to ask for assistance with a related project article? I have recently made significant improvements to List of awards and nominations received by Dev Patel but the project's talk page does not show much activity as regards responses to queries posted therein. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sort of depends on what help you are looking for. If you are looking for general advice and WikiProject Awards and WikiProject Lists are not active, you can try a logically-related wikiproject. The WikiProject Film or the Indian cinema task force or the Film awards task force or another may be able to help. You can use the WikiProject Directory to find more. If it is something specific such as sourcing of point-of-view issues, you can use the appropriate wp:Noticeboards (e.g., WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, respectively). Then there are general help boards at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and Wikipedia:Help desk. Finally, the article talk page itself is always a preferable place to work with other editors interested in the topic. So, a lot of options are available. I suggest waiting a decent length of time for an answer from one place before asking at another to lessen WP:FORUMSHOPPING concerns, though. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Best Group Video VMA

I don't know if there are any articles that explicitly mention the Best Group award (or Best New Artist, for that matter) as rewarding the act's full body of work for the year. If I remember correctly, I inferred this from the fact that in their official nominations announcement from 2007, MTV listed multiple videos for certain nominees in these categories (e.g., Gym Class Heroes, Fall Out Boy, Amy Winehouse). This information was repeated in other sources, like this Stereogum article. Still, I don't believe they confirmed this for any awards except Male and Female Artist. --Andresg770 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andresg770: yeah I came across those too. MTV just called it a new category but didn't go into specifics unlike for the other revamped categories. I also found this Slant article that mentioned the unsurety of what the category is actually for. I've been contemplating nominating the page for WP:FLC but inferences like this, that aren't explicitly stated anywhere and therefore can't exactly be sourced, would probably hinder it from passing, and reviewers can be pretty brutal depending on who you get, so I guess I'll just leave it as is. Shame though, would've been great to finally have one of these MTV articles as a FL. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Hey. It’s Doggy54321. Re this edit, I’d like to offer you some advice. Please use the {{in use}} template when doing that type of editing. You can modify the template to a section, add descriptions and more. The template is better than {{under construction}} because the latter doesn’t say "hey I’m editing this article so don’t edit for a while", it just says "this article is being expanded, please help if you want". If I was there in the middle of your edit, I would have gone ahead and edited the page as normal, since there was nothing telling me not to. I also don’t check edit summaries unless I’m making non-minor edits, so if I was changing something related to MOS:CAPS or MOS:whatever, I wouldn’t know you were editing majorly. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: I've had multiple experiences of ppl flat out ignoring the IU tag in the past and making whatever edits they wanted while I was actively editing a page hence why I didn't use it for something as major as the table conversion I was about to do. The UC tag better alerts people when major editing that would take some time is ongoing (in my defence, I thought the convert would take much longer to do otherwise I would have used the IU tag). I'll offer a little piece of advice in return: if UC/IC tags are on a page, it's always a good idea to check the edit history first and see how long ago the most recent change was made before doing anything major or minor, like your caps example above. Editors are encouraged to both use+read edit summaries for a reason so you should probably get in the habit of doing that, as many editors often leave notes or warnings for others in them. Selectively reading edit summaries as you mentioned you do does more harm than good. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Same, it’s so annoying! Thanks for the tips, I’ll try to use them more often. Have a great day/night/wherever you live! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

O!RUL8,2?

Sorry for reverting you, I didn't meant to. I changed the tracklist to a previous version and your correction got reverted automatically. - Ïvana (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ïvana: idek you did because I was busy with the txt discog. Hope you got things sorted out though. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

APAN Music Awards

Good afternoon, APANs should be added to the BTS and Blackpink awards. You think about it? Anyway, last time I didn't add the rewards to the table because it turned off, and then I forgot about it.Blink03 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: I was waiting to see if an article would be created for the awards first. Because I didn't want to do another footnote for the tables and I wasn't sure if it was related to the APAN Star awards either. But it turns out it's the music version of the awards so they can be included. If no one creates an article for the show I'll do it and then add them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I corrected the total number of MAMA nominations. I think it's fine. As for the number of nomiation and wins, are they all correct?--Blink03 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: I think it should be correct but I'm on my way out now so I'll double check it when I come back later ok? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course.--Blink03 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: well I'm sure you already saw the edits but the MAMA total is good now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Blackpink at APAN won Best Girl Group - Global: https://www.bandwagon.asia/articles/blackpink-bts-iu-kang-daniel-and-more-win-at-the-2020-apan-awards-see-the-list-of-popularity-award-winners --Blink03 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: Flabshoe1 already added it to the table earlier today. You must have missed it. Edit: nvm. I realised it's another award you were asking about. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Artistry and public image

Hi, Suga was promoted to full KOMCA membership a lot earlier In January 2018 [2], so I think the way you changed the sentence is not correct because it suggest that all three were promoted In January 2020. In January 2020 only RM and j-hope were promoted. GG HSk (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GG HSk: I simply adjusted the grammar based on the construction of the existing sentence, which was written by someone else. Even before I adjusted it, the wording meant the same thing then that you're pointing out now. I just adjusted it again so it only mentions j-hope now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

QQ Music Boom Boom Awards

This is a big award ceremony in China with the attendance of Lay Zhang and many other artists. Blackpink even sent a thank-you video to the ceremony, indicating that they recognized the ceremony. It is organized by QQ Music. I don't see why it is not official. The article I linked is written by an major media outlet and other major media outlets also mentioned it, showing that they recognized the award. Sports Donga, Sport Chosun, etc. are not unreliable. I will change it back again if you do not response in a day. Jihkilan (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jihkilan: I never said it wasn't "official". I said it isn't notable. There's a difference. These awards have not received significant coverage of any kind from reliable secondary sources for any years prior to Blackpink's winning to make it notable enough for inclusion in the table. By your reasoning, every award win mentioned by korean news media should be included and that's not how wikipedia works. Take a look at the article's talk page and you will see the same standard was applied to other questionable awards that were previously added. Please read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines to better understand what I'm referring to. If you have further questions I will try my best to answer. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It IS notable. Just because there are no sources in English or Korean writing about does NOT mean it's not notable nor official. If you at least tried to search up sources in Chinese, you would see tons of sources about the awards ceremony. If it's not notable enough, Blackpink or Lay Zhang would NOT even bother to attend or record a thank-you video. This is not some random awards like MusicDaily Awards in which there is no official organizer. This award ceromony was organized by QQ Music, which also hosted the QQ Music Awards. Big Bang won some QQ Music Awards, including the Most Popular Overseas Group. Here are some sources from about the Boom Boom Awards from Baidu, which is a platform similar to Naver: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1685376664163600136; http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2020-12/08/c_1126835728.htm. If you want an actual Chinese source with Blackpink mentioned on it, here is one from Xinmin Evening News: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1685490396216270435. I appreciate that you're trying to keep the article as accurate as possible, but reverting edits without fact-checking is annoying and I'm not sure anyone would appreciate that. Please remember that you do not own the article. Editing is fair game, and some discussions would be appreciated before reverting without fact-checking. -- Jihkilan (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jihkilan: a celebrity choosing to attend or accept an award from a particular ceremony (or recording a thank you video for it) does not make it notable by WP standards. Naver HOSTS articles written by others (it is not a source itself) and editors have to decide which of those articles are reliable to use. Baidu is a search engine like Google or a portal like Naver (if you want to make the comparison). It shows a variety of articles from both reliable and unreliable sources. Baijiahao is a blog-type site that has been criticised for among other things promoting false/fake news across a variety of topics (both major and minor) so it would be better to link to the orig source rather than the BJH link. Xinhua is considered marginally acceptable per WP:RSP depending on context and can be used for non-political topics (based on rfc's on WP that I've seen) but that's just ONE source for the award ceremony THIS YEAR. I cannot speak on the reliability of the Xinmin Evening News as its article is a stub and I can't find any discussions on its usage or non-usage but the info appears similar to the Xinhua source.

Also, I'm not acting like I own the page? Many other editors contribute to it and I don't stop them, they even pick up on mistakes I make from time to time when editing. And idk who told you that, but editing isn't fair game. There are rules and guidelines to follow. Not every news source is an acceptable one. Not every award show is a notable one. Otherwise all award pages on WP would be a hell of a lot longer than they currently are. Some are just better maintained than others, which is what I'm trying to do with the Blackpink page (started by another editor before me and I just picked up where they left off). That's all. An award doesn't have to be covered by English or Korean sources to make it notable (I neither implied nor outrightly said so either) but if you want to add it you have to be able to solidly prove its notability by providing multiple reliable sources (regardless of the language they're in), especially when there isn't a pre-existing article for the award show in question. You've only shown me 2 that could possibly work for this year alone. What about the previous years? Would you be able to build an an entire article for the award show from its inception and support it with acceptable, reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS and WP:RSN? The QQ Awards is a poor example to use as it it only contains 2 sources, one of which is primary. And by all accounts that article should probably be deleted. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: That is not true. There are a lot of sources that covered the award ceremony if you at least tried to search it up. Of course I only put only 2 sources because that would be too long. However, because it seems like you refused to search it up on your own, here is the search term that you can use to search on Google if you could not find any: QQ音乐重磅打造的. Here are some sources other than Xinmin Evening News: https://m.dbw.cn/yule/system/2020/12/02/058551267.shtml, https://www.sohu.com/a/436769134_325029, https://society.yunnan.cn/system/2020/12/07/031164402.shtml, http://ent.ynet.com/2020/12/02/3021102t1254.html, http://ex.chinadaily.com.cn/exchange/partners/82/rss/channel/cn/columns/snl9a7/stories/WS5fcdc3d0a3101e7ce9733b65.html. There are a lot of more sources if you use the search term above. Those links above should check all the notability guidelines, which includes significant coverage, reliability, and from secondary sources.

Think for it for a second, an award ceremony does not magically get millions of viewers or the attendance of famous stars without significant coverage or some credibility. Again, it was organized by QQ Music, which is the platform most Chinese use to listen to music. Therefore, it is credible and should be recognized as an official award ceremony. --Jihkilan (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Hello? Would appreciate a response because I explained it very clearly with sources backing it up. I will just assume that you agree if you don't reply in a couple of days. Thanks. Jihkilan (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize I needed to give another reply. I already told you what I think. Not every secondary news source is considered reliable. A show can receive significant coverage but if those sources covering it aren't considered reliable themselves then it's a moot point, which is what I've been telling you. And I know a lot of chinese sources don't usually make the cut. I asked someone to look into the chinese sources but they haven't gotten back to me as yet. Even if you decide to go ahead and restore it in the article, I hope you won't get mad again when someone else comes along in future and removes it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: ... and I provided you sources as you requested. If Xinmin Evening News and China Daily is not enough then I don't know what to tell you. These are national newspapers that are read by many. Again, this was organized by QQ Music, which is owned by Tencent (that also has its own award show, Tencent Music Entertainment Awards). Anyways, I'll take your answer as a yes. I'll go ahead and add it in a few days. Jihkilan (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Source check

It might be a little too implied imo; on the other hand I found an article by La República listing the popularity award nominees alongside rookies, songs and albums bonsangs that maybe it could serve as replacement for the popularity award. The same website published the list of nominees to the Soeul Music Awards as well. --Chiya^ko92 14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I thought. The La Republica source looks good. I think it'll work well! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

IP user -> 115.164.44.14

Hi, just to let you know, this IP, 115.164.44.14, is pretending to be you. User:CarIobunnie is the account they created. --Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cralobunnie and Carlobunie also made similar edits as 115.164.44.14 and they also have similar names as yours. EN-Jungwon 16:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

All the accounts have been indef blocked. EN-Jungwon 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lydïa and EN-Jungwon: thank you both for informing me. I saw the weird acs but didn't think too much of it because their edits were reverted every single time. Hopefully this is the last we see of them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jay Park's awards and nominations section

Hi there, I hope you're doing well in the lead up to Christmas. I seem to remember you having a fair bit of involvement in Blackpink's awards and nominations, so I was wondering if you would mind taking a moment to look at my sandbox? I've been working on converting multiple tables to single tables for a few artists with Jay Park being the most recent. I haven't altered any information or sources, only the table conversions. As you will see, there's still two left that I haven't merged into the single table - this is where I'm asking for your help. Do you have any ideas how to incorporate these nominations? I'm not sure if those are actually the names of the ceremony but it seems a little off to me? Sorry if it wasn't you who worked on other awards and nominations sections, you were the first editor I thought of to ask about this. TIA, Alex (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to edit anything you see that I've done wrong or could be improved - tables aren't my forte so I do most of it with the visual editor as I'm still not too familiar with how the styling aspects of it work. Alex (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: these kinds of nominations would be better suited in the prose of his main article in the section of his career/history that 2010 falls under rather than on his awards page, atleast the most searched one anyways; the best social network personality nom doesn't initially strike me as particularly notable (it's not mentioned in the source either). I'd say the most searched win is kind of similar to BTS being the most searched artists on YouTube for a particular year. Even if he actually received a little trophy for it, that type of stuff is not usually something to go on an awards page as he only topped a streaming site ranking (Naver Music); it doesn't appear to be for an actual music ceremony or anything. I can't review the table in detail right now but so far it looks good formatting wise. I should be able to take a better look a few hours from now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Carlobunnie, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Ashleyyoursmile! 14:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ashleyyoursmile! 14:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Blackpink nom

Hello, happy holidays. I'd like to ask you a favor. Could you correct the Blackpink wins and nominations? Because in the Italian voice they report different numbers and honestly I don't understand anything. Thanks in advance.Blink03 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: I stopped editing that page a little while ago and will no longer be making any updates to it so I'm sorry but I can't help. I will tell you this: the Wowie award you want to add isn't notable because it doesn't receive any coverage from reliable secondary sources so it shouldn't be in the Italian article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Why won't you edit on the voice anymore? You were also very helpful because I was able to modify the voice in Italian much more easily. I am very sorry :( Blink03 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blink03: it got very stressful after a while and I don't have the energy to "argue" with anyone so I just stopped. I checked over the page for you and updated the totals so you can update the Italian page accordingly. If any award is listed in a different order across there, you can change it to match the order here because another editor corrected the TFMA entry that had been incorrectly moved to lower down the table and restored it to its correct position in the table so everything is alphabetical again. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Carlobunnie,
Thanks for your contributions to improving and organizing all articles relating to Korean pop culture. Have a Happy New Year! ~~~~

---

• File:Bg.gif
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

2011 melon music awards

Hi, I noticed in one of your edit summaries on "I Am the Best" that you removed the citation for the 2011 Melon Music Award nominations and intended to find a better replacement. Have you come across any sources so far? Personally, after a while of searching on Nate and Naver I couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned the nominees. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nkon21: I did a pretty detailed search on Naver using a variety of search terms and didn't find anything. Mma website archives for that year on wayback didn't turn up anything either. Depending on how the nominees for SOTY were announced during the show that year, we might be able to cite the broadcast directly. Can't say anything for the popularity award nom yet tho. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

APAN Music Awards

I hope you know that there is a bright-line rule for editors on wikipedia and i.e., The three-revert rule. I saw on APAN Music Awards: Revision history that you have violated this rule. Considering the fact that you are using wikipedia from last 14 years really surprises me that you have violated the rule. I would request you have a check on your edits. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Thanks for your edits on Sing (Travis song), but I was wondering why you made the chart tables unsortable. I find sorting useful, especially when composing a chart performance section or when I need to say something like "[Song] reached the top 10 in x countries". It just makes it easier for me (and other editors/readers) to prove the information. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 01:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember who it was now, but on another music article a long-time music project editor recently (within the last month or two) commented in an edit summary that the tables don't need to be sortable. My poor memory cannot recall the rest of his explanation to provide it for you, but I thought his explanation made sense so I stopped making them sortable. Ofc, I am no authority on the matter so if you think its better to have it then please do restore it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it for now since it's part of my editing philosophy, but if another editor removes it in the future, I won't make a war out of it. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 02:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: the only thing I would say is that the year end table doesn't need it since there's just the one entry, so nothing to sort. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. Whenever a see a sortable one-entry table, I make it unsortable, because that really bothers me. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: oh my god please ignore that last comment. I was running on no sleep and somehow my stupid brain thought Sing had only one entry in its year-end table when I said that, but it was another article I was looking at while replying to you that I was actually thinking of. You must have thought wtf is she talking about. This tends to happen when I'm here too long, I'm really sorry 🙈🙈🙈. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited K-pop Hot 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IU.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Carlobunnie, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Copyright Award

I don't know if you're aware but Boy with Luv was selected as Song of the Year at the 7th KOMCA Copyright Awards. Since it's hosted by KOMCA I guess it's relevant enough to be mentioned on the list of awards. Some sources: 1 2 - Ïvana (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: yeah I remember the news on Pdogg's win being announced at the beginning of Feb. Saw the news about BWL last night, but haven't added it to the table yet cuz I gotta come up with a footnote first and locate sources for it). I was asleep for the past 12(?) hours lol, but I already have the ref for the win tho. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Japan chart

Hey Carlobunnie, I was busy earlier and didn't have time to fully respond. Per the notes at the top of this chart, here:................."The earliest chart data available is for only two weeks in 2008, on the chart issues dated May 10 and November 22. For 2009, chart is missing results for weeks 2009-01-07 – 2009-03-21, 2009-07-25, 2009-12-26, and all 2009 number of weeks charted). For 2010, missing 2010-01-16, 2010-05-22 (stops at 26) 2010-07-03, 2010-07-10, 2010-10-30, 2010-12-18, and all 2010 number of weeks charted. For 2011, missing 2011-01-07 – 2011-01-29, 2011-02-26, 2011-05-07, 2011-07-23, 2011-08-20, 2016-07-16"......... which I made years ago when first doing the BB English language chart review.....they may not be accurate now.

You will need to go through the chart and verify again to be certain which dates are actually still missing. Sometime in subsequent years, another editor used the Japan language page to add some missing entries and did not change my notes....so some of the dates might have been filled in. I did not go through their additions one-by-one to check....and I put it on a list of things to do, but as the page grew, it went to the bottom of the list. I will look for their entries in past edits and try to help update these notes, too.

I didn't want to add this to the Talk page of your draft until we can conclude what is what.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. - it is nice to have someone else interested in these charts. The updates are time consuming, and no matter how much I love them....still nice to see someone else taking the time, with interest!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have found the bulk of the edits I was referring to. The other editor was updating the Japan chart, at the time, weekly and also added some missing dates. Here it is: [3] Starting a review of the additions, I already see that the first citation for the first entry for "I Love You" conflicts with what was added by the editor, the citation says the song was performed by v-u-den, not Ryu Si-won and peaked at #67 on 2008-05-05, not #18 on 2008-05-10 which they added. And, we can no longer see it on the English site where the Japan Hot 100 chart currently starts with April 9, 2011 here [4] and lists only the top 10. As I did not add the first entry and find a problem with the citation, I personally would delete it unless another one can be found. And the review of these additions by that editor needs to be completed.

The page for Ryu Si-won#Singles also charted the song at #18 in 2008, edited in 2011 here [5], but the link to the Japanese website is dead now, alas.

The chart dates always vary by two days on the English site [6] - current week is Feb. 20 and the Japanese site, current week is Feb. 22 [7], but I always used the English site for the dates anyway. The most recent Japan 100 charts, with subscription, lists all 100 positions. The chart I used in the beginning was located under a different URL attached to the old BB subscription service and was moved to the present URL a couple of years ago. At Wayback Machine I am finding some of the chart archived, [8], but not all of it.

As much to say, this chart needed work and had weaknesses, and was the last of the remaining Asian charts on the page, which were my reasons for deleting it. I don't know that it deserves a stand-alone page, but that is for you to decide and other reviewers that may monitor it. I will try to help out some more.At a minimum the very first entry needs verification, and I apologize for that, I should have noticed it earlier, but I trusted the editor's input.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops...I made a mistake on my review of the first entry....I was looking at the May 5 and May 12 chart dates and missed the Ryu Si-won #18 on the May 5 chart....so the only difference on the page is the chart date of May 10, but at that time BB was pre-dating charts by 7 days, so I don't know why the editor listed it as May 10 instead of May 5? At any rate, you might want to go over these entries to be comfortable with publishing the page. Thanks and good luck.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I counted on my fingers to try to account for the May 10 date (May 5 minus 2 equals May 3, plus 7 equals May 10) then looked up the 2008 calendar....May 10 is the date for the Saturday chart, so assuming the Japanese page listed the date of entry, it is probably correct...Now I remember why I didn't double-check this editor's work at the time!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Oh no....I can't stop thinking about it! Now I think the correct chart date should be May 3 on the page....as I pointed out, the sites vary by 2 days (and the chart would not list an entry date! Oh please let me stop!....I think the date is probably what that editor always put for her entries, which is always 2 days past the ones I put....since she was using the Japanese site. I don't know how you may want to reconcile this on the page, if you think it needs it. My brain uses the English site calendar....so I was confused.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie, I'm letting you know that I will copy the above conversation and add it to the discussion which you started at Talk:List of K-pop songs on the Billboard charts for continuity. At this time, another editor has joined the discussion. Thanks,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: no problem. I checked the article's talk page but didn't see anything new but then I checked your talk page and saw the comment there. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeonjun Draft

Could you have a look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Choi_Yeonjun ? I would like if you could make any necessary edits for any grammar errors or anything you think needs to be improved. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: I feel like I should preface this by saying that the comment from the orig page reviewer a month ago still stands and you won't find someone telling you any differently this time around. Yeonjun easily fails to meet notability requirements outside of TXT so he shouldn't have an article just yet. There's a significant lack of coverage from reliable secondary sources on him as an individual since he's barely done anything solo, and the fact that the entire article contains exactly 8 lines about his life/career is more than telling. WP:BETTER would be good for you to read too. He's only been in the industry for 2 years and 99% of that has been TXT-related activities. I'd recommend waiting until he's pursued more solo endeavours first. I'd be happy to help out then. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Pdogg

Would you mind taking a look at my draft for Pdogg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pdogg ? I would appreciate any feedback on the sources and wouldn't mind you checking for grammar errors 52-whalien (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@52-whalien: I'll take an in-depth look at it tomorrow—I'm working on something else atm—but a quick onceover tells me you need to expand the body some more. The prose is too short. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate it! 52-whalien (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

BTS Page: Suggestion

Hello Carlobunnie! Hope you are doing fine. I am looking at BTS page and I am thinking if the "Cultural impact and legacy" section should have a separate page at this point. As more legit information is added with time, the main page keeps getting bigger and bigger. I am wondering if the "Impact Section" should also get its own Wiki page so the main page stays organized and data can be managed easily. I am not an expert in making pages so I thought I suggest you this idea. Facts Spiller (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Facts Spiller: well you're definitely right about both sections getting bigger and bigger. I'm not sure if standalone articles are usually created after a certain point for these sections for BLP articles, though it's possible. Tbf, I stopped editing the BTS page a while now because not only has it become a rly huge article in general, but the work it requires stresses me out greatly. I recently tweaked the smaller, more controllable philanthropy section, but for the most part I generally avoid the page. Maybe you could try asking on the talk page and get feedback from other editors who actively maintain it? I'm probably not the best person to ask this time around sorry ☹️. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Facts Spiller: ok so I did a little checking and the Madonna#Legacy and Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence sections (and their resulting spin-off articles) are probably what you're thinking of for the BTS page so yes it can be done. But you'd still need to mention it on the talk page to get consensus+then help to do it properly. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I understand your feelings. It is not only you. I have been noticing that the 2021 section isn't fully updated yet which makes me wonder if others also get stressed out in updating because the main page is huge! I guess I will have to try and update it myself slowly. Anyway, as for the separate page idea, I will post the same suggestion in the BTS Talk Page and see what others say. Facts Spiller (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Facts Spiller: I can't speak for anyone else, but my stress came from having to constantly correct things+cleanup after others all the time, no matter how many comments there were from myself (and other editors) asking people to stick to a consistent format. It became too much, and pointless after a while, so I stopped bothering. Also, some of the editors I used to work with, who were good at keeping the page in check, aren't here anymore/moved on to other pages instead, so I felt even less inclined to keep at it. Everytime I think about the page, it's like a mountain coming down on my head because of all the work I know needs to be done to bring up the article quality. If other editors agree (and I feel they will) about the spin-off articles, I'll take a look when you get things started and offer help if you need it (if I don't feel daunted by the task that is). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie:I have submitted my suggestion in the BTS Talk Page (you can check over there). Let's wait and see what the other editors say. Facts Spiller (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimin Spotify record

I found a source for Jimin surpassing 130m streams on Spotify with his three solo songs (an ip editor mentioned it earlier but it was unsourced/reverted) but I'm unsure as to where to add it - the paragraph has to be rewritten and you're better with words than me, so I'll leave it to you (if/when you have time!). Here is the k-article. - Ïvana (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I think it would be better to update his page when all 3 songs have surpassed 150 million streams, as that's a better milestone. Similar to how mv views are updated after they cross the 100 mil mark. Otherwise we might be expected to update every 10mil streams. What do you think? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that sounds better. I'll keep that in mind! - Ïvana (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with Draft

I was wondering if you could have a look at the table on my draft and maybe fix it. I've been trying to fix it myself but I seem to only mess it up more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hyojung#Singles Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: looking at it right now. Question though, did all of those songs really not chart on gaon at all, which would mean there's no sales data for them, or does that particular info still have to be added in? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Suddenly Autumn didn't enter the main chart but I did see it charted on Gaon's Mobile Chart, its ranking were 46 & 60. SAAR charted on Gaon's BGM chart at 95 & 88. I'm Loving You entered the BGM chart & both Mobile Charts. Overall they didn't perform well and didn't enter the main charts of Gaon. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: I did the cleanup for you, but if none of her music has charted (makes the chart positions col moot) and there's no sales to speak about (also moot), I've gotta question the justification of its inclusion in the first place. The fact alone that a song was released doesn't make it or the artist who performed it notable (and entering the Mob+BGM charts doesn't really count tbh). Ik the draft is currently incomplete, but unless you have a lot more info to add about her, I don't think it would pass an AfC review. She has to have considerable recognition outside of OMG to warrant her own article, and so far the draft doesn't show that she does. Just something to keep in mind as you continue working on it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Since then I've added some other works of hers, would you mind having a look at it once more? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: can anything else be found for the "Early life" section? One line is seriously sparse lol. Overall, it does look a bit better compared to last time (and good on you for linking the refs from Career to Filmography, I was actually going to recommend you do that when you left your msg on the 30th) I suppose it might pass, but having never written a BLP article before I can't say for certain. One thing though, seeing that you've already sourced her being a member of OMG in Career, the sources in the lead are unnecessary. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback ! Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your edit on BTS. Regarding you comment, the previous editors appear to have self-reverted after I contacted them on their talk page. After reading the article for the past few days, it looks like the article can be enhanced with about a dozen or two dozen edits towards getting it to peer review quality. If you can restore the version as I have started to edit it, then the article can be moved forward. The writing is in fairly good condition and mostly my edits up to this point have been to try to get a stronger table of contents for the article. If you can restore the article then maybe you could join in to improve the article towards peer review quality. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: sorry about replying late to this. My suggestion would be to sandbox each section you want to change/adjust, let the editors who monitor/regularly contribute to the page then review it (and make any tweaks if necessary), and then once everyone is satisfied, transfer each revamped section to the main page. Another editor and myself already previously discussed a standalone legacy article (see talk section slightly higher up) for BTS so you're on the right track, because others have also realized it's necessary now given how large certain sections are becoming. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. The brief history of my sequence of edits from last week is that after doing the promoted article for Yuzuru Hanyu it then looked as if the BTS article was going through many of the same large article size issues that were successfully repaired in the Yuzuru article when it was promoted. The old version of the Yuzuru article was approaching 300Kb in size similar to the BTS article which is now approaching 400Kb in size. The approach to deal with this was to rework the Table of Contents of the article into a more useful format for the benefit of readers, and then to re-assess the best places to make article splits in the article. Last week I only made it through half of the edits I had planned for the re-organization of the Table of Contents for BTS before the edits were removed. There was no material deleted or added other than the changes made to the Table of Contents. Also, I started to put the lead section into MOS format for peer review articles which generally does not allow footnote development in the lead section as is currently being done in the third paragraph of the current version of the lead section at BTS. I moved that footnoted material to the Cultural impact section, and then re-named the subsections in the Cultural impact section after separating the legacy comments into a small separate section. There was no deletion of material and effectively no material added. The new Table of Contents I was trying to add was to help move the BTS article toward peer review by providing an enhanced Table of Contents for editors to discuss possible page splits and mergers with other BTS sibling articles due to size issues in the current version of the article. This would help to address the article's large size issues. The BTS article deserves to be considered for peer review and it can be brought to peer review within a week or two if you can restore the 7-8 edits I made last week and if I could complete the edit sequence I had only half-completed last week. If you then do not think that the new Table of Contents works for you, then you can use twinkle to return the article to its previous state of editing as you did last week, and I will likely make no objections. Does that work for you and could you restore last week's edits for the enhancement of the article to move forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: unfortunately I can't revert my revert of all your edits because the page was edited several times after that which would create a problem. I stand by what I said though, rework each section in your sandbox (or better yet create a draft for it - that's what we did back in 2019 when we revamped the BTS awards list) and let other editors review each part as you work your way through it. That would make it easier for everyone, rather than having to constantly check multiple edits as you adjust the article, like you were doing that day.
In the end though, I can only offer suggestions on how this should be approached. If you decide to proceed as before, just be prepared to get reverted at some point or the other because I can guarantee it will more than likely happen when someone doesn't agree with a move you've made. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. Writing in the sandbox is fine though I currently do not have any new material to add to the article. The main issue for now, I think, is to arrange the Table of Contents into a format which will allow discussion with you and the other top editors of this page for the best places to do one or two page splits. The size of the article is an issue for peer review nomination (its approaching 400Kb) and getting the TOC into a format which would allow the useful discussion for article splits is all I have in mind. I'll suggest the following, which is that I return one of my previous edits to the article which was to make a stand alone Legacy section from already existing text in the article. Since you mentioned that you might like to do a Legacy sub-article at some point in the future, then this new Legacy section would be where you could put your link from the main article to your new Legacy sub-article whenever you get around to it. Let me know if it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Want to work on getting a FL together?

Hey Carlobunnie, I have been thinking about nominating List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020) for FL. I was wondering whether you would help me out since I saw that you had helped List of awards and nominations received by BTS to reach FL status. Regard. EN-Jungwon 19:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: idm helping at all, but just a general fyi that my phone I normally edit with is currently dead (power button is stuck/compressed into the phone body so I can't get it to turn on). I managed to get my old OnePlus one to power on but it has to stay plugged in 24/7 (on a very short USB charger) otherwise it shuts off, even the slightest shift of the cable makes it shut off, so it takes me even longer to make edits now. I have limited access to a shared desktop at nighttime, after 10/11pm into the whee hours of the am (which is why I was so active some hours ago), so be advised that if/when you need me, my responses may come much later at times. It's like I'm running on a diff timezone now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hopefully, you can get your phone fixed soon. No need to worry about time. The good thing about Wikipedia is that there is no time limit, unlike my assignments. EN-Jungwon 02:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please calm down

In use tags are not this important that you need to be all-caps ranting at people in edit summaries like this. Perhaps it's frustrating for you to run into edit conflicts, but the amount you edit that article, it's like you're not allowing anybody else to edit it or it all has to be your liking when you try to prevent anybody else from editing anything during what is bound to be a high-traffic time considering it just debuted atop the uS Hot 100. Please try to loosen your grip on the article a little and stop acting like you WP:OWN it, because that's the way it looks to me and I'm sure a significant amount of others. Thanks. Ss112 16:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, a user could very well report you for edit warring and going over WP:3RR. @BawinV: or any user disregarding your "in use" tag does not give you the right to go over three reverts. And you have definitely gone over three reverts on that article today, and not all edits you reverted prior were vandalism or exceptions 3RR. Please stop edit warring and making more than three non-vandalism reverts on an article. This smacks of micromanagement and WP:OWN. Ss112 17:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will second this. The song just got named the most popular in the world at this very moment. There are going to be edit conflicts whether you add a template or not. Please keep calm and civil, and not edit war. Best case scenario you're close to violating all three. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: to be clear, I have absolutely no issue with anyone editing the article. My history with it only shows me undoing disruptive edits, unsourced info, or false content being added to it (someone added a fake negative review from a BBC reporter), which I consider vandalism. To the best of my knowledge I reverted BawinV twice and I think A2013a before that. I didn't go back and check the page history to count so I genuinely apologize for the oversight on my part, but I honestly didn't realize it was so much. It's hard for me to keep track of every single notification about the page on this phone. My use of caps was so editors would see my msgs saying that the page was already being edited because my previous ones in lowercase seemed to have been missed by them. I understand how it could seem like I was perhaps "shouting" or something but I promise you I wasn't. You said "In use tags are not this important..." but I disagree, because the tag's usage was very helpfully recommended to me in the past by another editor as a good practice to help prevent editing conflicts exactly like what occurred today. When the tags are on a page/section, they are there for a reason and should not be disregarded - the notice literally says not to edit until it's removed. I try to use it regularly for the benefit of myself and other editors (I recommend it on occasion if they don't know abt it), especially if I know there may be a sudden influx of edits to a page because I don't want to disrupt someone else's work. So you'll forgive me for not understanding why 2 diff editors blatantly ignoring a clearly visible notice and editing anyways isn't also wrong too? I acknowledge my multiple reverts but there was no malicious or spiteful intent on my part. Nor do I try to micromanage the page. It's history shows other editors actively contribute to it, I just happen to have more edits because I use a very old phone that cuts off on me a lot and so I have to save things in multiple parts all the time, otherwise I lose my edits when the phone dies. I have never forbid anyone from editing the article so I'm very sorry that was the impression you got/I gave off today. It was not my intent at all. This reply alone took me very long to write because my phone shut off twice while replying to you, and then Sergecross73 replied in the middle of my third attempt (lol, just my luck) so I had to start over again. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about La República

I was checking the list of songs written by Yoongi and saw that his appearance in the bb hot 100 songwriters chart wasn't mentioned. Joon's article mentions it but uses this source. I know the website is considered reliable because I saw you using it multiple times. But is it really? Looking at it it's basically a translation of this Soompi article (and not a good one). I haven't checked other instances where the website is used but spanish articles being badly translated copies of english ones is pretty much the norm. So, in my opinion, it would be better to stick to english and korean sources. I found a karticle but haven't replaced the ref yet bc I wanted to hear your opinion. - Ïvana (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: any articles I used from LR in the past were ones that were appropriate/adequate for that particular instance. LR in general is a reliable source but I can't vouch for every single piece they publish as I don't follow them all. Tbh we could probably say the same abt BB, Forbes, and other reliable sources who have written pieces based on soompi/allkpop/chartdata etc. If the particular ref/article (I can't check the links you sent because this phone is giving me trouble) seems to be a soompi do over from what you can tell, then by all means replace it with a better one. I wouldn't say don't use LR at all just because of one poorly translated piece, since non-eng sources are fine to use (at an editor's discretion), but if there's a better written/more acceptable source than LR available in another lang then that should be prioritized over it.
You usually have a good eye for these things anyways so I'd trust your judgement if you say it's a poorly done piece. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of M Countdown Chart winners (2007)

Hello, Carlobunnie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of M Countdown Chart winners (2007), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BTS world record

Obviously undoing this back and forth won't do any good, so let me explain here. The two records in question are (copied from the article):

Publication	Year	World record	Record holder	Ref.
Guinness World Records	2020	Most viewers for a music concert live stream	Bang Bang Con: The Live
		Most viewers for a music concert live stream on a bespoke platform	BTS

References

As you can see, both of these records are the exact same, or rather, the first doesn't actually exist and just points to the latter. Hopefully this clears things up. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gultejp: "As you can see, both of these records are the exact same, or rather, the first doesn't actually exist and just points to the latter." - no I didn't in fact see because your statement doesn't clearly explain what you meant. Based on my history with the page (because I added those particular records at the request of another editor), both records were valid individual records that existed at the time they were added to the page, as evidenced by the archives of the attached refs, and as far as I knew still existed (no one else who edits the page brought it up and they sometimes know stuff long before I do). So surely you can see how it looks from my end, when someone who's never edited the page before appears all of a sudden and says both records are the same, doesn't provide any proof or explanation, and just changes it. Could have saved us both reverting each other if you'd simply said in your edit summary that the url for record X redirects to record Y meaning that X record no longer exists and should be removed. I wouldn't have reverted that. Now that I've checked them myself I understand what you were trying to say and I'll update the page accordingly. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF If you were not sure, you could have asked me instead of just reverting. In any case I checked the archives and "Bang Bang Con: The Live" was never the holder of any record, it was always BTS (and the first archive was actually archived before they held the record). The name of the record was just changed. Glad it's resolved at least. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 04:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gultejp: where did I say was unsure about anything? I don't revert things unless I fully believe an edit is wrong or atleast partially incorrect in some way. I explained why I thought you were wrong, which was the reason why I reverted you. The first record was archived+added to the table when GWR announced it in July 2020. The "second" record appeared almost an entire year later. None of us knew it was the same record now updated with diff wording. Talk page discussion on the article shows other editors believed it was an additional separate record hence it being added lower down. Idk what else you want me to tell you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you were sure of it. That doesn't mean you were correct, and your edit summary "not a duplicate" was not helpful. Once again, WP:AGF. This time it was you and the other editor who were ignorant. Anyway, this discussion has run its course. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 05:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gultejp: my "not a duplicate" summary was in response to your orig "removing duplicate" summary, which I already explained above to you why it was not very helpful to begin with. My summary simply quoted your own words back at you. Idk what sort of help you wanted in response if you already believed it was a duplicate record. If you choose to say/imply certain things about the way I responded to your edits every time you reply to me, then the convo has not run its course as the onus is on me to correct your misunderstandings, and so far I have been both polite and reasonable with you in that regard without resorting to name-calling. I bid you good night now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Help me!

I asked a question across at WT:BIOGRAPHY 9 days ago regarding the best way to mention or list awards/accolades received by an individual who is both a music producer+a businessman/CEO and have yet to get a response. I looked at a few other BLPs for guidance but would like a definitive response of some kind. Where else would be appropriate to direct my query? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject pages are a good place to start, but are not always well viewed- you may try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited K-pop Hot 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zico.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A few requests

Hey, hope you're doing well. Sorry to be annonying but when/if you have time, could you give me your opinion on two things?

First this draft: Draft:List of songs produced by Suga. I didn't bother to expand the lead bc I feel like the main article is the one with writing credits. Some song titles use adjacent sets of parentheses which I know should be avoided per MOS:BRACKET. But idk if using a break line is enough, or maybe just removing romanizations is better. Other than that, I think it looks good enough to be published.

Second, I've been thinking about nominating List of best-selling albums in South Korea for FL. I was going to submit it for a peer review (bc I'm pretty much the only one who updates it so it's not like there's a fixed group of ppl to ask for consensus) but figured out I would ask for your opinion first because of your contributions in List of awards and nominations received by BTS, and because you would probably answer faster lol. I'm pretty new to this so I only focused on updating all the refs/sales/captions. Some editors want to add more pics/expand the lead to mention specific records, such as first girlgroup/male soloist/female soloist/etc to achieve x number of sales after x years. There has been a revival of physical sales that started only a few years ago so a lot of acts qualify to be mentioned. IMO that's unnecessary plus I don't really like when there's a lot of pictures bc it looks cluttered so I'm adamant about it. I think that's just opening the door to IPs/fans adding random records for bragging points tbh. But Hobi's article, which is a FL, has a bunch of pics so idk. What do you think?. - Ïvana (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: you're not being annoying at all so please don't say that lol. I'm probably the actual annoying one, with all the questions and help I always have and need. The draft looks good so far, but you probably should create a lead of some kind because that's preferred/required(?) per MOS guidelines. Similar "produced by" articles should be able to help you come up with something, even if it's a small pgraph. That's better than having nothing at all. The brackets thing, I want to say remove the romanizations, but I also feel like they're necessary to have so I'm 50/50 on how to find a middle ground. The small text formatting you should probably get rid of.
There's an editor, I think it's Aoba94 or 64 or something like that, who I've seen on FLC reviews all the time who might be able to give you better insight on how to improve the albums list than me before you submit as an FLC, but to the best of my knowledge (and per advice given to me by other editors) it's up to your discretion to include as few/as many pictures as you feel is appropriate. Doesn't have to be a ton to match every single record but the article could have some more. With regards to how many records to mention in the lead, you don't want your pgraphs too long and bulky but you need a substantial lead and additional records would be good to mention. If Aoba isn't busy atm, they should be able to advise on including every single record or not, and what the best way to pick which ones are added to the lead would be. If I can help in any way (and only if you need me to), I don't mind chipping in a bit, but FLC reviewers are pretty good at trimming things down, or making suggestions to bulk them up, if they feel like the lead is lacking or could mention more. So again, it's up to you if you want to add more record notes and let them decide what doesn't need to be there, or you can wait for them to ask if there are no other records that could have been included. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of BTS live performances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 112.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bae Yoon-jung

Sorry to bother you, but if you're able to could you please have a look at this? In particular the Impact and Influence section. Your help would be greatly appreciated in fixing any unnecessary sentences. Now that I look at it that heading isn't even appropriate for that section's content. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: sure, looking at it now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: having reviewed that draft, if you want to rearrange+merge the information into more appropriate sections/subheadings, these two articles might be helpful. That aside, Bae doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article, as reviewers have pointed out (among other things), so I didn't rewrite or fix anything because I think it would be pointless as that draft should honestly just be deleted. Idk if there's any coverage of her in Korean ones to substantially change her notability (and enable one to reliably source that entire thing) but I doubt it very much. I'm sorry of that isn't what you were looking for but it reads like something you'd find on soompi or akp or another similar kpop/fan site. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MTV Video Music Award for Best Editing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drake and What's Next.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water Runs Dry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babyface.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Archives really don't need to be added as soon as you update a page

Regarding your edits to List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2021, I really don't think it's necessary to add an archive straight after you update a list. You might disagree, but you could just run a script every so often to automatically archive the links you haven't archived. Gaon chart links have worked for years—the URLs haven't changed in years, and their information rarely, if ever, changes. They're not about to immediately go dead. It looks as if today you've even used archive.today because the Wayback isn't working when it's not necessary either way. Ss112 02:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: it might not be necessary to you, but there's nothing wrong with doing it either. I got into the habit of archiving from back when I worked on the revamp of the BTS awards article for its FL submission, and subsequent GA's I assisted another editor with. It has always been mentioned as a good thing so I kept up with it. I edit from my phone and can't make use of scripts, nor does it bother me to manually add archives. Also, I archive regularly on both sites, so my using one over the other is neither here nor there. Forgive me, but this is a very strange thing of you to nitpick. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I simply pointed out it was not necessary because those links have basically never stopped working. I'm well aware archiving is usually done when getting articles into GA or FL shape—which I suppose means you intend to do this for the Gaon Digital 2021 list down the line. Frankly I wouldn't do this on a list article of all things, especially one I didn't even create, but whatever. Ss112 03:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

BTS Talk page

There's an ongoing conversation regarding the removal of some content. If it's okay with you, I would like to hear your opinion about it. --52-whalien (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@52-whalien: I saw the discussion, and normally I would participate, but I'd prefer not to have anything to do with one of the editors currently involved. I have my own concerns built up over the course of a year about their bias/neutrality on certain things and I'd rather avoid them altogether. Sorry I can't lend my voice this time. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello Carlobunnie. Hope you're doing well. I wanted to ask you if the "Korea First Brand Awards" are the same as the "Brand of the Year Awards" since I recently saw BTS won in the 2021 edition of the latter. And also your opinion about the "Brand Customer Loyalty Awards", ¿do you think the event is notable? It seems you know more about this topics so I thought you might be able to help me :) -- Pandadri (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pandadri: sorry for the late reply on this. In my mind I swear you asked me this on the BTS awards article talk page+that I responded there, so oops 🤦🏽‍♀️. They're both awarded by the Korea Consumer Brand Forum and are separate awards, however I don't know if they're worth including in the table. What makes the KCBF a notable institution? Eng transls from Soompi say that the "Brand of the Year Awards recognizes brands that have impressed over the past year with the winners determined through online votes", while "The Korea First Brand Awards chooses the most exciting brands for the upcoming year by conducting surveys and consulting with experts". They're not something I would personally include, iirc in past years editors have said they're not particularly notable, but you can ask for more opinions on the awards page if you like. I can look further into it after that depending on the outcome. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

BTS BIGGEST GROUP/BOYBAND IN THE WORLD

@Carlobunnie:Ok i should have posted my doubt here, anyway Hi Carlobunnie there is only one article of some low level website stating that exo is biggest boy band in word (in 2016 after 1D disbanded) but still they added it in their page. But there are literally more than 50 articles saying BTS is biggest boy band in the world (articles from 2019-2021) like vogue, cnn, etc genuine sources still why are you not adding it??

Also how bts nomination is 572 when on calculation its 567. Wins are correct on calculation.

Since you haven't signed your comments I can't tag you in my replies, but to the best of my knowledge the number of total nominations is correct, new ones just get added on to the previous total. Maybe I or another editor counted incorrectly as some point, but no one else who monitors the page has said the total is wrong, so I also thought it correct all this time. If it is wrong, I had no way to know you were fixing it rather than making a disruptive edit because you didn't leave any note in your edit summary indicating why you changed it. I'll recount it to double check but you'll have to give me time to do so. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie:Sorry i never felt the use of signing in cuz most of the time pages i touch are field hockey, olympic sports etc and some low visiting websites since nobody changes the infos at all (last changes would be like one month to 1 year back).

Since i love to collect data i found out that BTS page though is well structured but it's not updated well enough. For ex it talks only about sales till map of the soul 7 (20m on gaon) and haven't added sales of afterwards releases,right now at present they have crossed 30m (map of the soul journey +BE+ BE one more addition + Butter+ past album sales) in 2021 alone they have sold around 5.6m albums.

Also as far as that title is concerned "king of kpop" and biggest boyband in the world. I thought of giving you the links but you can find it easily just type"BTS biggest boy band in the world" you will get vogue, cnn, 7au(or something like tht Australian trusted media network) etc

and many more so if you could update all these with the help of those articles.

In exo page i saw biggest boy band thing but its 1 article of 2016 after 1D disbanded and not a trusted website but still they have added it. Cuz rn nobody will care as everyone knows about bts but you know after 10-15 years it will be better if things like these are mentioned.

Would still be nice if you could sign your comments though. Ah okay, you're talking about updating the BTS article specifically? Or also the BTS albums discography page too? Since you mentioned total sales. The 30mil sales needs an article from a reliable source that says sales have reached or surpassed that number. We can't change it otherwise. If we total Gaon's sales ourselves and write it, that would be WP:OR which is a no no. As for the biggest boyband, kings of kpop etc. titles, I'm pretty sure the Impact+influence section mentions whatever titles are acceptably sourced. If you want something else added, the correct place to bring it up is on the article's talk page (and provide the sources to support because they will ask you for them), not mine. You can also mention the unreliable website reference you saw being used. I stopped regularly contributing to the BTS page a while now, and only make occasional minor updates here and there, so I can't be of more help than my replies to you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: cool, thanks alot for answering. I never knew this much and all happens behind famous wiki pages.All the best for your future edits, new pages etc. Peace✌️

Np, but seriously though, go make your inquiries on the BTS page. The editors across there will help out once you follow the steps I mentioned. Have a good night! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Named refs

For what it's worth, there is little point in removing the name from a named ref. Just because something isn't currently used doesn't mean that it could in the future, and an edit that does nothing other than potentially cause a hassle in the future is rather silly. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: the only reason I removed it is because I've seen other editors remove ref names that aren't invoked elsewhere on a page on multiple occasions, so I thought that was normal to do? If I'd known it was a "hassle" and considered "silly" I wouldn't have done it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my wording, I didn't mean to imply that your edit specifically was a hassle; I've seen plenty of instances in the future where a reference gets duplicated multiple times on a page because it isn't named initially so the editor adding in the second/third instance don't realize it's already there. The "hassle" simply comes from then noticing that and then combining the refs, and it being silly is because removal doesn't actually do anything to the rendered page (so the relatively-small probability that it needs to be a named ref and thus the name re-added trumps the nonexistent "problem" of it being named).

As far as others doing this: I honestly don't think I've ever seen anyone removing names, only adding them. I don't doubt that you've seen it, since you've said it, just saying I've been around a while and apparently I hang out in different circles than you. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: in any case I restored it, so we should be good now! I'll remember to leave them alone in future. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Music of Dune (2021 film).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Chaos Chapter: Freeze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Music Bank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

BB charting

Hi Carlobunnie, I made some changes on the Japan chart here and here. In case there has been a misunderstanding....the 4th row on this page is "Peak position", which meant the changes made to "Lalisa" were correct. I backtracked to last three chart updates and made corrections on Sep. 25 chart (changed both "Lalisa" and "Day By Day" to peak positions and added "Stay Gold" as a Re-entry). Then I updated October 2 charting again...including "My Universe" with BTS. Let me know if you don't understand. Although the first row is "Chart date" (Entry date)....the 4th row has always been "Peak position" (which may be a different date, which is not documented on this page unless it is a No. 1 entry and that is noted in the "Notes Section"). Maybe this is where the confusion is....Another editor in the past also misunderstood this and was adding the Peak "date" to the first row. Let me know if it is not clear. All of the charts on these pages are the same and the past updates on the Japan chart were done so (with the Peak position showing). Sorry and thanks...--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: no need to explain. I'm aware of what the cols are for (note I didn't make the same mistake w any other song updates), I just got mixed up with that one song for some reason (idk why my brain kept saying entry position instead of peak position). I do think it was unnecessary to correct it the way you did. One edit updating the peak + an explanation in the edit summary would have been good enough. Also, I didn't add "My Universe" because it's not classified as a K-pop song by any source anywhere (at least none that I've seen i.e. BB, RS, NME etc.) BTS being on the song doesn't automatically make it k-pop. The article is after all, kpop songs on the BBJH100, not k-pop artists. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Carolbunnie, I made several edits instead of one and it was easier for me to follow by chart date and I also wanted to show my changes by chart date in the Edit Summaries: "Lalisa" to peak date; "Day By Day" to peak date; "Stay Gold" was a missed re-entry; "Sticker" correction, song by NCT 127, not Stray Kids; "My Universe" (added due to all language songs being added by "K-pop artists", previous Discussion about this issue occurred at Talk:List of K-pop songs on the Billboard charts and at Talk:List of K-pop albums on the Billboard charts....Although we agreed to remove Lay and WayV's chartings as they were C-pop not K-pop, no general consensus was reached. Due to this I later added this phrase to the pages' Introducion Section: "and songs performed by K-pop artists". No editors have complained about the addition of "other language" songs since then...except "Old Town Road", which re-mix by BTS did not qualify as raising the charting level, and I did not add it. As I previously mentioned to you about the addition of "Japanese language" songs to this Japan chart...the issue is still up for debate. But, as I said, since no one has complained, and everyone is certainly interested in where "K-pop" artists chart on the BB charts, regardless of language or genre of the songs....I had continued to add all charted songs (and albums)...again, as I said, with no further complaints or corrections by other editors. You may open the Discussion again at the Talk page, if you like, but for me, I find it not to be a big issue, at this time. I am happy that other editors have been interested in the BB K-pop pages and I get corrected all the time, due to the updates being tedious. It is nice to know others are looking out for my mistakes and I don't take them personally. Thanks as always for your hard work,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bonnielou2013 yes SG was a missed re-entry, which I clearly stated in a subsequent edit where I added it after realizing. Me writing SKZ instead of NCT was a typo (both groups are very similar to me+I pasted the wrong name in error). Things like a typo+peak fixes could've been consolidated in one edit instead of multiple (in my case, because of the condition of the device I edit w, I can't always save in one go). I appreciate the hefty amt of work you've done/do with the list, but those edits amounted to unnecessary duplicates.
I'm aware of those talk page discussions. Teemeah shared similar sentiments there to mine above about MU. And so we're clear, my comment was a clarification on why I didn't include it in my update, in response to your mentioning you added it, as opposed to a correction—I ultimately felt it would be out of place on the page. I honestly don't see a talk page discussion gaining much traction since even prior to the page split the orig article didn't get a ton of traffic from other editors for discussions either, but maybe on the WP:KO page yes. No editors "complaining" about something doesn't necessarily equate to current practices being wo issue. I mean just as an e.g. the orig page was way too long for quite some time, and very obviously so, and had MOS:NUM issues as well, yet no one "complained" abt its length or took it upon themselves to split it (I didn't forget that you tried once before). Whether that means no one noticed, didn't care enough to "complain"/do it themselves, or too few editors monitor the page, is open to interpretation.
I don't have a particular stance on Jpn-lang songs in the list, but since the pattern has been to include them, perhaps the page could be renamed, to "List of Kpop artists on the BBJH100". That would cover any Kpop artist credited on a song on the chart regardless of its language. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Carlobunnie, so that we have no hard feelings, I will offer to continue doing the Japan chart updates along with the others, if you like. One more chart "Dance Mix/Show Airplay" is also late every week, like the Japan one, so I will just do them together, or a week later, as I do that chart. I know you have a lot more pages, as you said before, that you do frequent updates on and I am doing the other BB updates anyway. I use the English language Japan chart (with the subscription service) as the Japan language page lists some songs in English and some in Japanese and it is harder to locate the K-pop ones there, for me anyway. Just let me know OK. Thanks, --Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie....Sorry, late response. I apologize if I have offended you. As I have said, My manner of editing chart updates is week-by-week and I can't do it backwards...maybe my thinking is linear, but it confuses me to do it any other way, unless I add it to my Sandbox and add up all the subsequent chart weeks there. I did not mean to offend you, please don't feel that way. Thanks for your thoughts about adding other language/genre songs, etc. Frankly, due to the massive work the BB charts have required, I simply found it too cumbersome to "analyze" each song or album that charted. Yes, I was the one that brought up the issue at the Talk pages and saw that the direction was tilting towards excluding English language songs, in particular. But for me, working on the updates weekly, it meant I would have to listen to each and every song, go to that artist's page or song page (if one existed) and make a determination if it qualified for K-pop or not. Another editor added Pinkfong's "Baby Shark" song....what to do...simply going through all the charts weekly was mind-boggling. And excluding songs with English phrasing (how much is too much English in a song?) and leaving out hit songs and K-pop milestones on the charts seemed wrong to me. "Butter" and "Permission to Dance", as latest examples, and BoA's groundbreaking album BoA, or the many collaborations of K-pop and other artists. Simply scouring through many charts and searching for K-pop artists and catching all the new artists that I may not have heard of....and figuring out the multiple song mixes and releases in other languages and which was charting this week....and then the social charts (for artist's names)....did Jackson hit on Social 50 this week for a Korean song (ie. K-pop) or was it a Chinese release? And how do I make that determination anyway. So, if I left it in black-and-white....my work was easier...see artist's name (check), add to list (check). Thanks for your attention and discussions with me. All of the pages don't get a lot of viewing traffic and especially these two new ones we split off, the World Digital Songs and the Japan one. Sometimes it seems the work isn't worth the effort. And like my attempting to abandon the Japan chart to cut page size for WP rules, I have considered throwing in the towel altogether. I started the first page in December 2014 and it's been a fun hobby for me. But sometimes I think that interested readers can simply log on to BB and read the results themselves. Talk to you later.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: you haven't offended me at all. We were simply having a discussion about issues concerning the page so not sure what I said to give you that impression. I am confused by your response though, as I subsequently suggested 1) broaching the topic (the inclusion of Jpn-lang songs) on the WP:KO talk page to reach more editors if that's something you wanted, or 2) possibly renaming the page to help reduce the unsurety of having to determine whether songs of a certain lang should be included or not. But for some reason you bypassed all that and instead started talking about kpop-related songs/artists/albums on the various BB charts in general? My comments were specifically regarding any song by kpop artists that entered the BBJapanH100 only. All of that aside, I can also just tag the page for speedy deletion to give you one less headache to worry about. At the end of the day, ppl can just check the charts themselves like you said. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks C. Good, we're fine then. My pity party aside (of course I am not ending my work now), I thought you were talking about all the BB K-pop pages as our discussion branched from those Talk page discussions. Sorry for the digression. RE: Japan chart page only...if it is just the matter of this recent inclusion of "My Universe"...I had added it to the main Song page which the Japan page is attached to. If you want to exclude it, on the Japan chart page, I won't object, please take it off again. Re: Japan language songs, you uploaded the page with them on it and as you know, I also have no objection to them being there. I have said above that I feel the wording of the first paragraph of the page covers the issue fairy well. My biggest headaches with WP work has been any misunderstandings and hard feelings. Yes, I said I could have conducted my edits in another manner and apologized. If we are good now, that is all that matters to me. Updates are tomorrow again and as I have volunteered again, I can do the Japan page, too...no problem (unless I faint or die from exhaustion.....poor me...lol!)--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: yes I uploaded the table w the Japanese songs included, because that's exactly how it was on the main article prior to the split. That was not as an indication of any particular preference on my part for their inclusion. Honestly, don't let maintenance of the pages (which you do quite a lot of) wear you out. It's not worth it. I used to be like that with certain pages, and possibly still am to an extent, but I have learnt to relax my grip a little so to speak, and not let things cause me as much stress as they did in the past. I would still like to help find the missing older entries, so when you have the time perhaps you can explain to me how you do it because I tried inputting searches via the dates and go no results. Unless a subscription is required to access data that old (i think u mentioned you have one). If it's not something I can help w then I'll just leave the page alone. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Carlobunnie. The older entries are at the Japan Hot 100 on the Japan BB page, since the English charts only go back to April 9, 2011. But it is twice as tedious, as I said, due to entries being partially in English, but mostly in Japanese. That's where I got the last ones I added. And please do any edits whenever you like, especially catching my mistakes on the weekly updates. When an IP editor catches my mistakes, I literally beg them to join WP and join in...hahaha. Thanks again, have a good day!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hey, just wanted to inform you that I've moved your query from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Unlike most other noticeboard pages, RSN for some reason uses the main page for discussions. I also restored the conversation at RSP for archiving and added a template to indicate that it was moved. I hope you don't mind my meddling, also I think it might have caused a second ping for you so sorry about that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: it's not problem, but the reason I didn't use the template is because I changed the wording of what I orig wrote when I went across there to ask. It looks weird now cuz in reply to my "new" ask there's your comment telling me to move it to where it currently is and my reply saying I'll do so lol. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed that you added a bit in the new ask, if you want to you can still re-add it to the sentence. And yup, it looks weird but it also contained my comment on the sources and it's better to preserve discussion history. There's banner at the top saying it was moved so hopefully it won't confuse anyone too much. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine either way. Thanks again for the assist. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited VIXX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Title track.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

BTS awards

Who makes the page semi protected? If you can, can you please make the bts awards page semi protected. Many new editors or random people are just toying around with the data. Data For Life (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Data For Life: I wasn't around to do so, but I did ask another editor to report them if they continued disrupting the page, and I see that they were given a two week editing ban, so we're all good now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:BT21

Hello, Carlobunnie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:BT21, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 47th People's Choice Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Heize discography

Hi. I understand you'll probably say that you were still in the process of working on it, but really, the lead artist section on Heize discography was a mess and I don't understand why you left it like that. Even if you were in the process of moving the soundtrack songs into the main table (which I've finished doing for you), you could have cleaned it up. I guess you didn't preview before saving or scroll down to see the formatting mismatches that broke the table. Also, I'm sure you aware, but most Korean artists' discographies keep their soundtrack appearances separate from their main chronology of singles, so this appears to be your preference and I don't understand why you felt the need to change it. Ss112 03:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the BTS discography talk page a while back and an editor pointed out that for discographies in general on WP, soundtrack singles/albums aren't separated but included in the main table (as done with beyonce, taylor swift etc.), and there's no existing explanation for why they're separated. So per that discussion, I merged it on the TXT discog, and then Heize's when I started working on it. It's not a personal preference thing. I do check my previews, but I genuinely don't know what errors you're referring to so my apologies for whatever broke that I wasn't aware of. I haven't been back to the article in a while because my anxiety acted up badly the last time I was editing it, so I stayed away from it for a bit to avoid getting agitated. Ik the lead is incomplete, but I couldn't exactly use the under construction tag to explain its state because after a few days of me not editing the page it would've been removed by another editor. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well, that doesn't look like a consensus, only a local discussion about what to do on BTS singles discography. And I specifically recall being the one adding their "soundtrack" singles from BTS World into the main table, as I created all those singles' articles and the article for BTS World when they came out, so it had obviously been separated by somebody since. Anyway, I know in general discographies on Wikipedia incorporate the soundtrack singles into the main singles table—that's why I said "most Korean artists' discographies". I don't have a particular interest in questioning why it is the way it is for Korean artists specifically, but as you've proven with your edits to the Heize discography article, it's a laborious process to incorporate them back in so it's kept going for whatever reason. As for what I'm referring to, the broken table here. Ss112 05:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Petty revert

This makes it look like you were waiting months to revert me and looks incredibly petty even if you didn't intend it to. You literally could've copied that key table from a previous list and added the new citation instead of reverting me, restoring the mid-year citation. Don't hold on to grudges around here, Carlo, you won't benefit from them. Also, I find it incredibly strange that somebody who was open enough to tell me in the section directly above that they have anxiety issues, why that person would then deliberately put themselves into an antagonistic situation with another editor. Why would you not try to avoid conflict as much as possible? Nobody is going to respond positively to an editor reverting a months-old edit of theirs when you could have restored it without doing so. Ss112 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was easier for me to revert then add the ref separately because opening/editing WP pages with large amts of text makes my mobile Chrome browser freeze up and crash. I've mentioned this multiple times before in past edit summaries on pages we both monitor, and you know I do things in multiple parts sometimes for this exact reason rather than in one edit. Same with the updates to the prose that I was in the middle of doing one at a time. Please don't be so quick to assume/infer that someone is (possibly) being petty or waiting to get back at you for something. That wasn't the case at all. And I didn't create an antagonistic situation. You assumed a negative intent behind my revert otherwise you wouldn't have left the msg that you did. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm finding it very hard not to assume negative intent considering you had to scroll through several months worth of edits to find that one to specifically revert. I completely forgot about that; it appears you remembered it the whole time. It literally would've been easier to copy the key table from the 2020 list then navigate to the 2021 list and add it, which does not require one to load the two articles at once, merely one after the other. If you expect me to believe the former effort was lesser and easier to you than the latter, that is just simply untrue. Ss112 18:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I'd have had to tap edit on the 2020 article to access the key text to copy it. That's what makes my Chrome freeze, because when the page loads after I hit edit, there's a lot of text there. And I did try that at first, but Chrome froze 3 times and I couldn't copy anything because my keyboard stops responding when the app freezes. Alternatively, Firefox sometimes fuctions better than it and allows me to copy text from large pages, but it also froze so I wasn't able to do it there either. The only thing I could do, w less taps and no freezing involved, was wait a bit for FF to respond (Chrome was still freezing and crashing at this point), undo your edit which restored the key from the page history (undoing doesn't cause any freeze issue), and then add the 2021 ref. You might not believe it, but that's how things are for me w this device. Sometimes I can edit easily and other times I have to jump through hoops. I didn't remember about your edit until after the browser freezes, when I was trying to figure out how else I could get the key text. And your edit is only on the 2nd page of the edit history for me. I just tapped 'older 100' and saw it. Idk what else to say for you to believe me. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

JK's Achievements

Hi there! Can we have a list of Jungkook's achievements on a separate page under his Awards? The record of his "firsts" and "mosts" in music, social media, and the like. It's sad to see those go to waste as people forget them as time goes by. I saw a similar format in Madonna's page, as guide perhaps. Thank you! 130.105.192.145 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! The achievements in question can be added so long as they are covered by reliable secondary sources (see WP:KO/RS and WP:RSPSOURCES) and do not constitute WP:FANCRUFT (not every achievement is encyclopedic content). Which in particular are you thinking of? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! Appreciate this. I think there are some reliable sources about it. For example, his recent Billboard, iTunes, and Spotify records for Stay Alive. His records in WDSS for My Time and Euphoria. Things like these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.192.145 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My Time and Euphoria's WDSS records are already in his Career section, they just need updating, since the last we did was as of Oct 2021. "Stay Alive" has yet to be added there. iTunes/Spotify records generally can't be mentioned per WP:BADCHARTS, but I'll review his stats and see what is safe to include. I don't keep track of everything, so feel free to ask on his article's talk page if you think anything else is missing. Other editors can also assist! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, I remember now that his WDSS records for MT and E are already in. On Spotify and iTunes, thanks for letting me know. I am so new in Wikipedia contributions/edits so I lack in many things about it. Anyway, thank you so much for your work, esp with Stay Alive's new addition on JK's Career section. Hope to see more soon from other editors as well. Thank you, Carlobunnie! Stay safe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.192.145 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help. Also, WP:HI is good for learning the ins and outs of wikipedia/editing. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! By the way, is it possible to have the list I asked or are we going to see the records in narrative form under his Career section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.192.145 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually working on an article for the song, so whatever is acceptable will be mentioned there. There won't be an actual list, but it will appear in the Commercial perf section prose. His page will only mention minimal info as records that pertain to the song should mainly be on its article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Will be waiting for SA's page/article. Thank you so much! One more thing, if I may, do you have sources citing US sales of his Euphoria with 500k and My Time with some 200k? Some articles say so, as in allkpop (though not acceptable, I suppose). Hope it gets updated, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.192.145 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, news articles don't usually get written about song sales updates in the US, unless it's related to a new song's debut, older songs reentering a chart, or a track achieving a certification. Then BB will mention sales as of a certain date, like they did here. Star News (kor) usually covers all sorts of updates inclu for solo tracks, but they also report on unreliable sources like akp, twt etc. so we can't always use their articles even if ones exist. Idk if there are any for what you mentioned, as I haven't really checked, but if you find one you can always make an edit request on his talk page. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, that's how it goes. Will try to make an edit request on his Talk page soon. Thank you so much for your responses and hardwork. My apologies for my queries and all. Stay safe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.192.145 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for apologies and you're welcome. Happy I could help! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you heaps! By the way, is Cosmic Awards accepted as legit award? 130.105.208.241 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't say. I've never heard of it before. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I just saw a tweet earlier stating that JK has won for two consecutive years in Cosmic Awards. 130.105.208.241 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I checked it out and it's not notable by any means. Can't even find the body/organization/individual behind it. Looks mainly like some online fan vote poll thing that just gained traction. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

All right, looked for it as well and didn't find significant details. Anyway, do you have (or know of someone who has) information on JK's Artistry? Saw some of his bandmates with this. 130.105.208.241 (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. Ik fanbases sometimes share articles kmedia write on the topic on twitter, so maybe you can try searching there, or Google. You could also ask editors who've contributed to the pages of the members w that info on theirs. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I will go and ask other editor/s as well. Sorry for too much questions/requests. I appreciate your time and hardwork. Thank you! 130.105.208.241 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked other editors about my last concern. One said I should ask you or another editor (no reply yet) since you two are well verse with BTS. 130.105.208.241 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Cite error on BTS singles discography

I know what needs to be fixed, but what do I need to be beside the AQ for 'Your Eyes Tell'? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Give it its own cert reference, but I see a bot already fixed it. The YET error didn't even show up in the preview on my phone. I only saw the reference list error notice, otherwise I'd have fixed that too. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked Paper9oll to see if he could fix it. Just wait a little while until he comes back on. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 21:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I just went back in and corrected the remaining entries that were attached to the error. They all now have standalone cites for their certs, instead of a shared one (used when multiple songs are certified in the same month), so the next time any of them receive further certs, we just need to update the cert yr/mth in the individual ref. I had to switch to a diff browser and use desktop mode, that's why it took me so long, so sorry about that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 03:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)