Talk:BGYO

Improvements to article
Hi, I wanted to discuss the changes I'm making to this article. I want this group to have a high quality article, which means it needs to get more focused, more in line with WP:SUMMARY style, and have better sources. I think there's no reason to believe that BGYO do not deserve an article, so the key is to make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything that's ever been posted online about this group. The key is to summarize their career and music while avoiding tilting into becoming a fan page. Let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I do appreciate the improvements in the article. By the way, about the fandom name shall I still include it but without much detail? only i will mention it in the article because it has a supporting links, I will just remove the quotes from BGYO or the ones referred from the Youtube? Same with the section Artistry, can I still put it but I will remove the ones referred from Youtube. Is this valid or not at all. Thank you. Please let me know. Thank you again.Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would say that a sentence (maybe two) about the fandom name would be appropriate, with a reliable source.
 * In general, reliable sources are very important. I'd recommend reading WP:RELIABILITY and maybe taking a look at some comparable pages, like the one on BTS. Most of the sources there are full news articles from well-known newspapers and journals. Since this group is launched by ABS-CBN, ABS-CBN itself is probably a biased source, and it should be used sparingly.
 * By the way, thank you for your contributions in general! You've done a lot of good work. In collaboration, we can make a good article that will stand the test of time. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for your contributions in general! You've done a lot of good work. In collaboration, we can make a good article that will stand the test of time. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for your contributions in general! You've done a lot of good work. In collaboration, we can make a good article that will stand the test of time. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I really do appreciate this interaction as I will learn from it. Best regards. Troy26Castillo (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I noticed the note at the top of the article, and I replaced those sources that is related to ABS-CBN. Hopefully it will be okey now. Plus please also check the ones I added for Fandom Name (this is the one I previously asked) and the ones with the Artistry section. Thank you and Best Regards.Troy26Castillo (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , great work, that's a big improvement! I've removed the template. I made a few edits to the sections you re-added - they look good now. Thanks for working on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Troy26Castillo (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view dispute
I noticed that the article is clearly written from a fan's point of view, I hope the author of the article cleans it up and someone copyread it. -– A 6397   T A L K!   02:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed some grammar errors from the articles. -– A 6397   T A L K!   02:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * How did you say that this article is not neutral? First and foremost, take a look on my user page. Second, you only noticed that this is a fan point's of view, but, with all due respect, the problem is with the other contributors point of view, because your corrections in the article have been corrected already by other contributors in Wikipedia and then you corrected again based on your point of view. How many contributors are there here in Wikipedia and each of them have their own standards, their own style. Your updates might be good to you then for some it will not. So what is the reason why it will be like this? Every time we will adjust in order to meet your personal thoughts. Because, if the case like this, it is not helping. Why not do your corrections then we will talk if that is reasonable.Troy26Castillo (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please check this out, the ones you noticed in the article previously and then we fixed and corrected. Then, everything was just revised by. Now I am confused which one is correct. Please enlighten me on this matter. Why it has to be like this. As per the neutrality, it has been discussed also with. Why there is repetition of issues when it has been discussed and corrected previously? I respect all the possible corrections in this article to make it more acceptable but what i don't understand is the issues previously addressed and corrected of another contributor that I thought was correct was reverted by another contributor. It is not helping if like this.Troy26Castillo (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think is correct, actually. No Wikipedia article is ever "finished" - they are always works in progress, and any editor has the right to come along and suggest changes. You and I worked to improve the article a bit in April - and now a third editor has ideas on how to improve the article - that's fine! No one "owns" the article, after all - it belongs to every Wikipedian, together. I do think there are some parts of it now that are not as neutral as they should be. I'm going to make some changes to that effect. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okey thank you for enlightening me on this matter. And also, thank you for helping to improve this article. I do really appreciate your efforts. I am always welcome with corrections, it's just that I got confused on the ruling of which is the suitable format, but thank you for guiding me through this. May you not get tired on checking articles that needs improvement. Thank you again Troy26Castillo (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do check this article once again. sorted out the possible mistake in the article based on your corrections. Thank you.Troy26Castillo (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding redundant contents
To the main editor of the article, @Troy26Castillo, please avoid adding redundant contents that is already stated on the other sections of the page. Thanks. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 21:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ Noted and thank you for the improvements. Much appreciated.Troy26Castillo (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"ACEs (BGYO fandom)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ACEs (BGYO fandom). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Preview Creative 25 (insert-lowres-bgyo-1).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BGYO at Xiaomi Fan Festival.png

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angelo Troy Rivera which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
The whole article has excessive mentions of non-notable events and has too many quotations that are deemed redundant (also by other users in this talk page). I am suggesting in limiting them to the important ones only, I can do a cleanup but I want the article author to do it himself. He seems to be obsessed in editing this article according to the edit history that it is sounding like an advertisement. If you take note of how One Direction and other similar articles are written, they wouldn't mention Facebook livestreams or Kumu events. The group is still too new to have a cultural impact section with just quotations from their press releases (that their management has paid to be released). An article should abide thru Wikipedia's notablity guidelines.-– A 6397   T A L K!   00:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC) – A  6397   T A L K!   00:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole article's structure also was also notably copied from SB19, and the author just seemed to look for anything he can include and and fit into the article even if the subjects are insignificant that causes some parts to be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I don't wanna interfere with how you want this article to look like and start an edit war, so I am encouraging you in good faith to make necessary changes for the improvement of the article for the benefit of the group itself since I can see that you are a superfan of them and ABS-CBN artists, if P-Pop fans find their Wikipedia article too biased, it might make it harder for them to "stan" the group. Not every press release, or irrelevant guestings can be included on an encyclopedia, think of it as the one you borrow from the library, it has to be detailed with the significant parts only. -– A 6397   T A L K!   00:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * all noted but be careful on your allegations on copying the articles structures. For example: the LEGACY AND CULTURAL IMPACT section came in SEPTEMBER 2021 while on the article you are referring to as reference came in, 3 or 4 months after. If this is one of the structures, you are telling, then try to verify first before you tell these things. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every achievement should be highlighted with "the First Filipino to ever", it sounds so validation-seeking. -– A 6397   T A L K!   00:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed unrealiable sources that are from paid promotional releases by their management, the LionheartTV citation clearly states it's a press release from the link itself, paid and promotional articles usually has conflict of interest per WP:IBA. -– A 6397   T A L K!   00:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched the article because I do not want to start an edit war, but please do a cleanup, and I will monitor this also, please don't remove the tags until we reach a concensus here. Everyone is encouraged to reply. -– A 6397   T A L K!   00:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggested improvements in the article. If you have ample time to recheck the cleaning I did. If there's a need for further cleaning. Just let me know. Thank you Troy26Castillo (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the FACEBOOK and KUMU events, please take note that the group debuted in the middle of the pandemic esp in their home country, if it's not pandemic these virtual events should have been materialized in person. Why you have to compare the articles of the artists debuted during the pandemic and the one's started their career prior to the worldwide pandemic?
 * But then again, thank you for your inputs. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Improvements needed
Hello. I just rewrote the lead section for copy editing, primarily for improvements. Several references that were used to cite single topics from the section were removed, as it seems to be a citation kill. One example was when ten sources were used to support the same topic. Though the inline citation was done through citation merging, one reputable, reliable source is arguably enough. Additionally, some passages were removed based on their notability and/or importance to be included in the lead section. The passage about the group's musical style was moved to BGYO as it fits in the section. The artistry section was also trimmed down as it contains too many artists, with each having wikilinks, making the section look cluttered.

This is just a small improvement relative to the article's size. The article still needs major revisions as it still contains multiple issues (see Talk:BGYO for some info). The contents (particularly the BGYO) look very cluttered in wikilinks and citations, and the notability of some of the subjects is questionable. For concerns and questions, feel free to reply here. AstrooKai (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)