Talk:BTS/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
I want to edit one of BTS members names as it had been removed by someone Bts2dream (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
There is a need for main display picture to be changed as it is a too old one and will make it difficult for people to recognize them. There should be a recent picture uploaded. Bts2dream (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ You need to be able to suggest a copyright-free image that would be suitable for inclusion - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Their is seven members of BTS not six so add Kim seokjin aka jin back on 2600:1700:A432:8800:797A:C1E4:324E:D17C (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Where does this need corrected? I see seven. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
I would like to request that Kim Seokjin a member of Bts have his photo be fixed. There have been a lot of anti fans who have been attacking Bts and have decided to take down Jin’s picture. I wanted to request it be fixed or have access to fix the problem. Yoobi uwu (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure what you’re talking about, the members don't have individual images on this article as it’s about the group as a whole, not the members. The article for Kim Seok-jin has only been edited once since April 9, and his image is still there. If you're referring to something outside of Wikipedia, this is not the place to look for help. Alex (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
Hello, if you search 'how many members in bts' it will display that BTS member is 8. And when you look at the member profile, you will see 2 Kim Seokjin. One is Kim Seokjin of BTS, and i don't know the another one. Please edit the member because it will be confusing for new fans or locals. Thank you and i'm sorry about my grammar. Winter naz (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is a Google search results issue. Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. Ə XPLICIT 13:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
BTS is world Domination 82.28.14.167 (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
BTS is a K-POP boy group formed in South Korean company, Big Hit Entertainment. 71.163.49.3 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's already in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements section needs culling
This section has for the most part been maintained fairly well over the years, but I've been noticing for quite some time now that almost every new endorsement keeps being added in. I believe a rewrite (as was done by the editor who did a fantastic job of fixing the 2020 section) or an editing overhaul is in order for brevity and such. I'm not very good at that sort of thing (otherwise I'd do it myself) so I'm just bringing it to everyone's attention. However if the consensus is that the section is acceptable as is then please disregard this.-- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to rewrite the section in my sandbox, grouping them in paragraphs centered on global endorsements, endorsements in Asia, and collaborations and removing a lot of unnecessary detail. There are a couple lines I'm not sure I placed correctly, like the line about Dior. Reading the article, it appears that the clothes were actually designed for BTS and BTS was not paid to wear the clothing, so I'm unsure what to do with it. Please feel free to make any changes and give feedback before I move it to the main article. Starlight dreams (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this. Looks good so far, just a few minor suggestions:
 * For the Samsung bit, could we expand the sentence to include that Samsung released a BTS themed S20+ (i think that's the newest model), similar to how we mentioned the LG thinQ?
 * in the 3rd pgraph I think you should remove the "BTS have also collaborated with various companies." line to avoid sounding redundant unless the first two sentences are actually supposed to be joined as one and the '.' separating them is a typo?
 * "and the webtoon Save Me in collaboration with LICO and Line Webtoon" -> perhaps 'and the webtoon Save Me in collaboration with LICO on Line Webtoon' since the previous part of the sentence already indicates that everything being referred to are all webtoons.
 * "BTS have also worked collaborated up with Casetify (their article is barebones but it doesn't hurt to link to it) on a global tech accessory collection and ceramics company Kwangjuyo for a line of a BTS-themed ceramics.
 * The Dior bit I think we can leave as is for now. I read about six diff articles that all said the same thing, the pieces were specifically designed for the boys after they looked over the collection and chose out styles they liked before Jones did the rest. Yes they weren't paid and it was the first time Dior had ever done something like that. I would just edit the sentence to say "BTS sported ensembles from..." since the pieces were inspired by parts of the collection.
 * -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes, will move to main article. Thanks for the feedback! Starlight dreams (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede
I disagree with your edit summary. It is not unnecessary to state the year of debut in the lede, in fact is rather strange and misleading to solely state the year of formation and omit the mention of debut year for the group, as that is objectively the year that means the most to the readers. I see previous discussions on this page have disputed whether 2010 is even accurate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  23:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I undid your edits because of comments made by the editors in the very discussion you're referring to. Based on the suggestion in the last comment iirc, the lede section was adjusted to what it was before you edited it. And I believe everyone was in agreement with those adjustments. The lede section states when the group was formed and then the 2nd pgraph mentions information about their debut. If I am wrong in thinking the editors who are most active in maintaining the page didn't disagree with the change because it was left as is after that then I do apologize. However, if you thought it could be worded better and had a suitable supporting reference to go with your changes, and you had stated so on the talk page rather than just editing like you did, I probably wouldn't have undone it. We could have gotten the discussion opened up again and then made changes if such was agreed upon. But as it is the Vulture article only mentions the 2010 formation, so even if the change is correct, your edit didn't match the used source. I meant no ill will by undoing you I promise. Carlobunnie (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I honestly didn't think my edit would be that controversial in nature. But anyways, after closer examination of the Vulture source, I don't think it is the most reliable source to use to support the formation claim – you're right, I shouldn't have kept it with my edit. The only mention of formation the short article has is the line, "BTS had already been signed to BigHit since 2010; RM was the first".
 * However, other sources such as, , ,  all claim the RM was the first one to sign with Bighit in 2010, and mentions that the other members of BTS joined within the next 2 years, finalizing the group in 2012. The Vulture article almost brushes the line of original research, as in itself vaguely says that BTS "signed" with Bighit in 2010, RM being the first – not expilicitly stating that the group had already formed then.
 * It makes sense, as "signed" does not necessarily equate to formation, especially when other sources explicitly state that other members joined the after 2010. Trainees who sign to a particular agency does not surely mean that they have already formed a group, that process is decided through evaluation and planning over the course of time. Because the year 2010 is only supported by vague mentions of formation in many sources, I think it is best to reword the lede to say "formed in 2012", or just omit it alltogether and describe the group's pre-debut years in more detail in the early years section. However, I do think that mentioning the group debuting in 2013 in the first sentence is essential. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * lol I wouldn't call it controversial. It's just that changes to the page are more heavily scrutinized(?) I guess because it does experience heavy vandalism (malicious or just unnecessary trivial edits), and while I don't speak for other editors, if I don't see an immediate justifiable reason for a particular edit (especially if it relates to something previously discussed and handled) I undo it. You are right about signed not equating to formation except I explicitly recall BSH saying (in video and written interviews) that he signed RM in 2010 with the intent of forming a group (that eventually became the BTS we know) around his talent and that is why many articles say BTS was formed in 2010 ie. when RM was brought on and then later that year J-hope and suga, becoming the 3 core members before the vocal additions. Looking at the BSB and NSYNC ledes, it is interesting to note that the supporting citations for their respective formation years state 1995 as Nsync's (when the final member of the lineup was added in replacement of a prev person), and 1993 as BSB's (when the final member flew in to join the others who had already come together). If the standard for formation years seems to be when the lineup of a group is finalized then for BTS it would be the year the last member (Jimin) joined which would put us at 2012, so I'm not contesting you there (your reasoning for 2012 is sound). I cannot remember if the reason there's been so much discussion about the formation year is due to the varying reports (all of which are correct in one way or another) or the different ways that "formed" can be interpreted.
 * While their debut year is important to mention in the opening sentences of the lede, I don't think needs to be in the first sentence. It could perhaps be reworded to something like:
 * "BTS (Korean: 방탄소년단; RR: Bangtan Sonyeondan), also known as the Bangtan Boys, is a seven-member South Korean boy band formed in Seoul in 2012. (with supporting source of choice) The group consists of /insert member names here/ (unsure what the precedent is for Korean bg articles though as I haven't checked in quite some time, and no two articles are written exactly alike though many do mirror each other). They debuted in 2013 with the release of their single album, 2 Cool 4 Skool. Originally a hip hop group, their musical style has evolved to include a wide range of genres, with septet co-writing and producing much of their output. Their lyrics, often focused on personal and social commentary, touch on the themes of mental health, troubles of school-age youth, loss, the journey towards loving oneself, and individualism. Their work features references to literature and psychological concepts and includes an alternative universe storyline."
 * However I do think that any changes to the lede warrant more input than just yours or mine, considering this isn't the first time this particular issue has been brought up. I'll tag a few other editors in my summary notes. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should at least say "a South Korean boy band who began their formation in 2010" as opposed to "formed in 2010" purely because the lineup wasn't finalised until 2012 and the wording as it is currently suggests that the group as we know it was formed in 2010. I don't see anything else that particularly needs altering. Alex (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alex. I think that 2010 should be mentioned because BTS were already featuring in other artists' songs before debuting, even though at the time they had different members (RM being the only exception). --  Chiya ko92 08:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about "BTS (Korean: 방탄소년단; RR: Bangtan Sonyeondan), also known as the Bangtan Boys, is a seven-member South Korean boy band who began their formation in 2010 in Seoul and debuted in 2013.[Source]" ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  08:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. --  Chiya ko92 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded in a while, I'm going to assume that nobody has objections. I'm going to replace the first sentence with the one I mentioned above. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  23:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Links?
I really love BTS and all their accomplishments, but y’all can’t just put y’all opinions. Y’all need sources by what you say, or this isn't a credible source. Literally the first few paragraphs have no sources at all. David Soyer (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the lead? Because if you are, the inclusion of citations are not required in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. It merely just summarizes the key points later described in fuller detail in the article, so redundant citations that already support the same information later in the body are best to be avoided. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

nćt!😁😁😆
how do you work??? this than. uii am new haré so idk how to work the can some help? am i on nct????? hi don’t speak englas Btsarmygirl01 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Btsarmygirl01: This is the English Wikipedia, so you will need to speak English to help with the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

bias
calling them 'charismatic' and comparing them to the beatles is clearly wrote by a BTS fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of these inclusions are based on secondary source articles as is appropriate to a WP article. Also don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages. Nangears (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14th september 2020
hi can i edit jungkook's  page it is very outdated
 * This is not the place to ask for increased editing rights, but this is also not Jungkook's article. This talk Page is for discussing how to improve BTS' article. Alex (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020
18:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)I want to add an important mistake so I need to edit it.
 * You want to add a mistake? That won't be accepted. If that is incorrect, please re-open this request (by changing "answered=yes" to "answered=no") and state any changes you want to be made to the article in a "change X to Y" format, along with reliable sources which support any claim. Editors will then review your request again. Alex (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2020
Could someone remove the mistake in the caption under the picture of the group? I think Suga is mistaken with Jimin... Randomgirleditingsomestuff (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Are you talking about the infobox image? It seems to me that the caption is accurate.  ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

First in America?
" By 2017, BTS crossed into the global music market leading the Korean Wave to prominence in the United States and breaking numerous sales records" "Prominence" is perhaps a value judgment. In any case, I don't think this unsupported claim should be in the article. The singer/actor Rain was on the cover of 'Time' magazine well before 2017. Also, a popular girls band from Korea also made a splash in America in the early teens. Kdammers (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020
Please change "BTS (Korean: 방탄소년단; RR: Bangtan Sonyeondan), also known as the Bangtan Boys, is a seven-member South Korean boy band that began formation in 2010 and debuted in 2013 under Big Hit Entertainment." to "BTS (Korean: 방탄소년단; RR: Bangtan Sonyeondan), also known as the Bangtan Boys, is a seven member Grammy nominated South Korean boy band that began formation in 2010 and debuted in 2013 under Big Hit Entertainment." Bertypickle (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Unnecessary. The Grammy nomination is already in List of awards and nominations received by BTS. Lydïa   (☎️ ◦ ✍) 20:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

BTS member RM's Korean War speech controversy?
What about the recent speech by RM over Korean War that led to furious reactions by Chinese netizens? Why was it not included? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a scandal. Till now i dont understand it. how did affect china?? BoraHAE613 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021
2601:C4:8301:B060:3DEE:5821:CC0C:1F68 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC) bts is the most loved and respected.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Best, DanCherek (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-RS
The Showbiz411 ref should be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and replaced with a more reliable source. Thanks! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Write 'much' of their own music
From the introduction: Language a little vague, also, lacking a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InconvenientX (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it is sourced in the "musical style" section under "artistry". Alex (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Picture request on February 27, 2021
Change main group photo to something of a much more recent one to keep it updated. 49.145.197.193 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Do you have a specific photo you want to suggest? If so, feel free to re-open this request and add the picture. If not, this is probably too open ended of an edit request to be answerable. Volteer1 (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, this Commons category may help. The corresponding 2020 entry is empty, perhaps because of COVID. From a cursory look none of the photos are of the same or better quality. Given the current image is from 2018 it probably isn't too big of an issue, but a discussion would be nice. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Career in 2021
Wanted to ask if anyone is working on the 'Career Section' for 2021 or not? Facts Spiller (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021
let me edit the bts page 49.207.221.2 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Evaders99 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
so yeah once i was reading this side on wiki where it said they made csgo, which is incorrect. that is why i would like to help fixing thoes problems. dont really have anything else ((: Hann541h (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2020-2021: Map of the Soul: 7, "Dynamite", and Be
Please start a new line for this fact: On March 4, 2021, it was revealed that BTS were named the top Global Recording Artist of the Year of 2020 by the IFPI, becoming the first non-English act and first Asian act to do so. NZK-music (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My intention here was to show that we start talking about 2021 while the information at the beginning of the paragraph is related to 2020. NZK-music (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough information yet to justify a section for the year 2021.-- Lirim  |  Talk  09:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. However, I wasn't talking about a new section but a new line. Anyways, I'm sure their coming work makes the editor create a new section for 2021. NZK-music (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ it makes sense to have a new paragraph for a new year. Alex (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
I am looking at the 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 this idea here. Facts Spiller (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021
Can I change the BTS profile image for this WiKi, because it's a bit out dated. 116.48.96.67 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you happen to own the rights for a newer/better picture, feel free to submit it. Guidelines: Copyrights-- Lirim  |  Talk  10:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Psss Maya rodrigo (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC
Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
2001:56A:F136:2300:14A8:2E51:4DB1:6979 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Can I change BTS image?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The GA review
Isn't this basically a quick fail? The user has 18 edits on the page (Not even top 20). In my opinion, this article does not meet the GA standards yet. A lot of claims are out of date, some refs are missing trans-titles and a few other things. Should we just quick fail this?-- Lirim  |  Talk  01:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think he realized the scope of the work that still needs to be done on the article. Maybe just ping him and get him to withdraw the nomination? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please withdraw the nomination? The article is far from meeting the GA standard-- Lirim  |  Talk  03:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your added comments are on my Talk page. Wikipedia policy is generally for a neutral editor to make a good faith assessment of an article for pass or fail. The current article can be described as:


 * (1) It is reasonably well-written with many supportive citations
 * (2) There appear to be no copy-vio problems with the narrative text as presented in the article
 * (3) The images used in the article appear informative and appear to check-out on Wikimedia
 * (4) The article is currently listed on the article’s Talk page as a B-class article which indicates its quality
 * (5) The article has over 600 fully formatted cites, with zero dead links, which is very well documented
 * Each of these suggest that the article is ready for GAN.


 * Possibly this is related to the Talk discussion raised recently on Carlobunnie’s account where WP:OWN is being discussed with several editors, who have visited that Talk page. You appear to state that you have something like a private list of edit requests that need to be made to this article in your note above. Could you share this list and present your list of needed edits for the article on this Talk page so that other editors can discuss them and maybe bring them into the article as needed. The article currently appears to check all five points mentioned above and seems ready for nomination and review. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How on earth does WP:OWN have to do with this GA review??? Second, what private list are you even talking about, maybe you could link to that discussion instead first??? and  In my opinion, just leave the nomination as it is, someone (the reviewer) will review it and leave comments if it were to fail of which the comments can be used to further improve the article. If it passed then ... good then.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If someone were to even nominate this page for good article status, it would preferable for someone who has greatly contributed to the article be the one to do so. It appears that ErnestKrause first edit to the page was only 2 weeks ago and has only contributed 0.1% to the total content of the page as of now. Would you mind explaining why you think nominating the article yourself is the best fit? ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  14:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if an article seemingly meets GAN requirements at the surface level, that doesn't mean a more detailed level of work shouldn't be put in beforehand to ensure it's truly at its best before being nominated accordingly. I have only one FL to my name but have been involved in helping a few articles reach GA status, so I am familiar to a degree with what a nom-ready article should be/look like. Lirim.Z has multiple FLs to their name, and has been involved with multiple GA's (working on them+reviewing) as well, so even if you think it's a matter of OWN with me, at the very least take their words into consideration? Surely you can acknowledge the legitimate concerns raised? I was only trying to help but I won't say any more than this because I don't want another accusation levelled at me. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments made in relation to Carlobunnie are inappropriate in this discussion. There was a one-off situation where I felt they were a bit hasty in their edits and edit conflicts at a single song article. Meanwhile, the argument that the nom was made by someone who hasnt been very involved historically is a valid concern. I don't know if it needs to be an auto-fail our not, but judging by this discussion, it's not destined to go well. I certainly would not have made the nom in a similar position. Sergecross73   msg me  16:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hip Hop or not
Guys, Is BTS a hip hop group too? Should we add BTS to List of hip hop groups? It is not in that list. HONDA Gang (say hi) 11:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't add BTS as a hip-hop group, they are just famous world-wide k-pop band originally from south korea. Because they are very famous among Asia and pop fans too, we cannot count BTS in Hip Hop or pop. Thanks. Pratyaksha Raj (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean, it does say BTS is a hip hop group in the infobox, so I think we should add it to the List of hip hop groups. -- Lydïa  (☎️ ◦ ✍) 15:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally think they are both. Maya rodrigo (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Technology there not a hip hop group, in there trainee days they were a hip hop group but they changed there style a bit🙌. 216.10.217.224 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the addition to the list; music critic Kim Youngdae asserted that their music is still rooted in hip hop, at least as of autumn 2019. --  Chiya ko92 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Inspired by literary, psychological, artistic, and philosophical mediums?
Are BTS really inspired by literary, psychological, artistic, and philosophical mediums or is this simply a marketing gimmick? They may have vague allusions, but once again, it is one to market themselves. Shouldn't wikipedia differentiate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.210 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No doubt at all that this is just marketing bull. Having said that, most of the article reads like it was written by their marketing team.Newzild (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to remind you that this is not a forum to discuss opinions about the article but rather a talk page for its improvements. Additionally, please remember to be civil and avoid using profanity. PurpleIsTheBestColour (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns regarding the level of neutrality of the article (taking into consideration that personal opinions are not facts) then feel free to improve it, or make suggestions. - Ïvana (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ivana. I think I will. Newzild (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry about the photo
I am curious how the picture alongside the article is chosen? If possible, may I suggest a more recent photo as the current one is from about 3 years ago and I believe a more recent photo would better reflect the purpose of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleIsTheBestColour (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to the Infobox image hence please read MOS:LEADIMAGE. If you have what you mentioned as better (which I assume you're referring to better quality prefer 1920&times;1080 or higher resolution, the current image is 1920&times;1080) and more recent image which follow WP:IUP guidelines then feel free to upload Commons. After which you can either exercise WP:BOLD or start discussion here.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

SUGA, j-hope and Jung Kook not correctly written
SUGA is correctly written with capital letters only, j-hope is written without capital letters, Jung Kook is written with a space in between. You can see it on their website, in the credits of their albums, in the titles of the videos on their YouTube channel BANGTANTV when you are searching with their names and on their Facebook page when you are searching with their names. Christian2003:CA:E74D:4F87:8961:A792:B16A:389C (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not use such stylizations MOS:TMRULES Evaders99 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
I want to include another etymology behind BTS rather than 'Bang Tan Sonyeondan'. It is kind of known fact in Korea but it seems it's not on wikipeida. I want to contribute to BTS wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphinus0401 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please elaborate on the changes you would like to make and include a source.-- Lirim  |  Talk  08:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  Mel ma nn   09:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021
Add a label to the “label” category, they are currently with HYBE LABELS Notmycupoftae (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Bighit had rebranded itself as HYBE LABELS. So I’d like to add that to the “labels” category please. Thanks :) Notmycupoftae (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021
An editor to comes out to be a BTS hater has added the newly published billboard article about BTS, in the commercial influence section of the page, in which they were asked inappropriate questions and were basically questioned about their success. The editor who added that part is obsessed with BTS to level that when other editors tired to remove that part he kept adding it again and again and now it can only be censored and not deleted. Kindly delete that part because it sets a wrong impact and misinformation on the reader about BTS. Thank you This is part to be removed

In an August 2021 cover story on BTS, Billboard highlighted how the band's fans have "long exploited loopholes in music chart rules" to boost the ranks of singles such as "Butter" and "Permission to Dance" on those charts. The magazine underscored bulk sales via BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase unlimited copies of a song unlike iTunes, and their crowdfunding efforts, such as utilizing PayPal to collect money from fans around the world and invest it in buying BTS' music that will count toward US sales SADIMHUMAN (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done: There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the topic.-- Lirim  |  Talk  11:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
I’m really displeased that certain people from various fandoms have had access to the page to further their agenda. I have the proof will this page stay permanently locked now from such attacks. Not sure how to provide screenshots of admission of doing this also ? Any advice would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh8611 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think an editor has a conflict of interest, especially the repeating offenders, please kindly read this Conflict of interest as there are several options to handle it. Please do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. I notice BTS' pages tend to attract lof of vandalism. To find out more about vandalism, please read Vandalism on Wikipedia. Some measures to prevent it including putting it in watchlists so any registered user can watch a page and monitor it for vandalism, or making it semi-protected articles.

It will be helpful to be more familiar with Wikipedia rules as it makes pointing out the more subtle vandalism or other problematic behavior/edits easier.

I hope it helps. Beatrixx00 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider removing content
I would like further opinions regarding this information's inclusion in the article. I think it should be removed as I feel it's of no substantial value. ''In an August 2021 cover story on BTS, Billboard highlighted how the band's fans have "long exploited loopholes in music chart rules" to inflate the commercial success of BTS in the United States, especially in the cases of singles such as "Butter" and "Permission to Dance". The magazine underscored bulk sales via BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase unlimited copies of a song unlike iTunes, and their crowdfunding efforts, such as utilizing PayPal to collect money from fans around the world and invest it in buying BTS' music that will count toward US sales." 52-whalien (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is very substantial to the context of the section "Commericial influence", safeguards the article's neutrality. If it will be removed, then I suggest the whole "Commercial influence" section be removed as per WP:NPOV. BawinV (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I also don't see the relevance to "commercial influence" given that the rest of this section has to do with their economic impact on a national and global scale. The billboard article is questioning charting practices, (chiefly through hearsay from fan twitter accounts), not calling into question the existence of the sales themselves.


 * But even ignoring that the billboard article was focused on charting rather than commercial success, the scale of money involved is too small to be worth including. This section is focused on influence that amounts to millions or billions of dollars and their impact on the economy of South Korea as well as the global music industry. On that basis I also believe it should be removed. Baepsayed (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * (REDACT)
 * (REDACT), How does that information pertain to the rest of that section? Per user Baepsayed it further supports my reasoning. I have no intentions of censoring anyone but it's just that the information provided isn't at all suitable especially not for that section. 52-whalien (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (REDACT)
 * I agree completely. BawinV (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Billboard is the reliable source on music industry charts in the United States. Why would their opinion not be substantial? Trillfendi (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The BB article questioned how/why they chart. I checked Levitating (song) and saw no mention of 4000+ sales being filtered because of fans using VPNs, or SuperM (EP) debuting at #1 because of 60+ bundles, etc. If the company is not the one pushing it, does it warrant inclusion? Unprompted fan behaviour != marketing tactic. But if the consensus is to keep that info then, in my opinion, it should be relocated. I don't see how fans mass buying music is comparable to things like the group's economic effect on South Korea, which is the kind of topic covered in the commercial influence section. Maybe RM's and Hybe's responses regarding the allegations of chart manipulation should also be included, seeing how a lot of publications (western and korean) covered their statements. - Ïvana (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that should matter. Billboard attributes BTS' recent chart-topping success in part to their fandom's chart manipulation tactics. If we're going to have a "Commercial influence" section, and we're not even gonna say how their commerce is influenced in the U.S., one of their biggest markets, as reported by the most reliable music publication in the U.S? Is this article supposed to praise BTS and tells readers how rich they are only? And how much money they made themselves and South Korea? Sounds like puffery and bias to me (In fact, I find the whole article puffed with too much undue focus on finance and praise, but that's a discussion for another day). But moving on to your statement about RM, yes, I agree that RM's statement should included there. I don't think Hyde's response is relevant, since this article is about BTS, not the label; a BTS member's response is enough. BawinV (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The focus of that interview is very much on chart manipulation and doesn't much correlate with the rest of the other content of the section. You mention that the article itself praises them too much so how can anyone be sure that you didn't have ill intentions when adding that information? I don't much think that such information about other singers that utilize those practices would have that included in their own articles so why are you so adamant about its inclusion in their article? 52-whalien (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , it does matter because you've just gone from a matter of commercial influence to a matter of commercial performance, which is what the Hot 100 - and every other national music chart - is supposed to represent. Nowhere in that section is there a mention of, for example, Gaon or other South Korean chart performance - why include this paragraph afterwards, then?


 * Also, while this section in particular is arguably not against WP:BIAS, the versions included on both Butter and Permission To Dance certainly toe the line. And not in a positive way. Toyota Impreza (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's decided to include the content, it must be reworded. Billboard did not state "the band's fans have "long exploited loopholes in music chart rules" to inflate the commercial success of BTS in the United States". The Billboard article says that's what fans of other artists claim. It should be not written that Billboard made the claim. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Are bundles mentioned in other artists articles? Or their reliance on radio and playlisting to chart? Folklore (Taylor Swift album) comes to mind-it had 18 different versions, and that's without including clothing, or limited versions of the Cardigan single. I don't see that mentioned at all. That's just one example. And I agree with Schazjmd, the article only cites random comments from twitter users that are fans of other artists. Honestly it seems hilarious to consider the opinion of twitter trolls as something objective. How is a Dua Lipa fan tweeting that BTS has “fraudulent ways” and its fans are “involved in chart manipulation” actual proof of chart manipulation? (Funnier considering how Dua fans used VPNs to chart) Nothing BTS or their fans do is out of the ordinary (all artists have website stores) so I don't see why they should be singled out. - Ïvana (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. How do we proceed with handling this? I myself am settled on it being completely removed. 52-whalien (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree to all of the above comments. And I'm gonna ignore all of the irrelevant topics out of the scope of this talk. Moving to the subject of this discussion, apart from citing what others fandoms say, Billboard itself is making several comments in the article, and those are the only comments included in the prose. 52-whalien calling me adamant is funny, especially when they're so adamant in removing well-cited information as well. Instead of calling people names, I think it's best we stick to topic. I believe the Billboard story should be there, or otherwise, it is plainly WP:BIAS against critiques, and blatantly against WP:NPOV, which states all information, negative or positive, should be represented in an article. Regards. BawinV (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm more than ready to move this discussion to the talk page of WikiProject Music or WikiProject Musicians, where we get to discuss with a wider range of editors, and not just the ones that primarily edit on BTS-related articles, or we could even initiate a Rfc. BawinV (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Go ahead and proceed with it. 52-whalien (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everything that has been added from the BB article should be removed til a consensus is reached. That includes this page, Butter and Permission to Dance, to avoid further disruptions. If the content is deemed appropiate then it can be added again. I've seen people reverting and unreverting edits all day. - Ïvana (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The only thing that the author mentioned regarding chart manipulation apart from fan comments are a) sales from webstores (something that every artist has) and b) crowfunding efforts by fans (again, not uncommon at all). If that's a loophole it should be mentioned in pretty much every artist page. Same with bundles, playlisting, radio, and anything that pushes a single/album. I don't mind including negative comments, but what exactly is the critic here? That they rely on sales? All artist do, the only difference is that in BTS case, sales work because they have a lot of fans. I support BawinV's suggestion, we should probably move the discussion to reach a consensus, because it seems like we're all talking in circles. - Ïvana (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * BawinV can you explain in detail how that passage belongs in the Commercial Influence section specifically? I reread the information in the section and the passage and it just doesn't belong there. Moreover there are a lot of articles that talk about BTS charting success and ways they achieve it in different lights - why include this one and not all the others? Bloomgirl26 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Billboard in the article even states "Billboard’s rules, for example, allow people to buy a certain number of versions of songs or albums per week, and any sales per version exceeding that cap do not contribute to the artist’s weekly sales total or chart placement" so of what relevance or creditability are the biased tweets of fans on Twitter of other artist's in competition with BTS? Fans must buy music according to the cap or the sales will not count on the Billboard charts, so any problems would lie in Billboard's rules itself as RM states in the article. Like user Schazjmd said the content included must be reworded if it is to stay in the article. GabrielleGrand9 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @BawinV I’ve went throughout this entire discussion and agree with the others. You’re wording of the article is very wrong and sounds very biased to me. When asked about chart manipulation the artists provided a statement and disagreed with such actions. If you would want to report about the article it’s relevant that you include the artists’ response to such claims. Kedysha Jeanty (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ll appreciate if we can come to the agreement to instead of disregarding the entire article, just edit out the irrelevant pieces and add the artist’s response is such claims. Kedysha Jeanty (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The billboard article was misrepresented and misquoted by BawinV, who has been documented as having made derogatory posts about the band on his social media accounts linked on his page; the magazine itself never accused the band of chart manipulation they simply reported what fans of other artists were saying on twitter regarding their chart performance under specific chart accounts. if such baseless accusations are included on every artists' wikipedia page, we would never see the end of it. it doesn't seem to be relevant to the page overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyartemis (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ^agreed. I’ve noticed a change and add of the artists’ response to the article’s claims. Kedysha Jeanty (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The article's author misrepresented quotes from Twitter users, who then later had to contact Billboard itself to have their comments removed, as their words were used out of context and without permission. The article was not written with a good intent and should not be included on the page as it contributes nothing substantial. The sole reason of this even being a discution and the back and forth that's currently happening in the page's edit history is a direct result of how a bad publication can influence malicious fans of other artists to further try to bring the one they dislike down. The segment should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj7798 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Commercial influence" is not only a mess right now but also the wrong place for this new segment. A selectively quoted part of the Billboard article was entered to show a biased view. The addition of the answer of the article to have an unbiased reproduction of the article part was continuously deleted. That is malicious and vandalism. I recommend to contact a higher Wikipedia authority to handle the situation and to penalize the vandal. If this info needs to be in the Wikipedia article, then it doesn't really belong into "Commercial influence". That would be a new "Controversies". --2A02:810C:CFBF:B7E8:2925:A028:227D:9136 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I see RM's response has been added. However, this fails to address the other misinformation. It is untrue to state that the website sales are unlimited, when the website itself clearly blocks the customer from adding anything over 4 units to their cart. BawinV seems to be misconstruing "sources say" in the article as fact when we have clear evidence that it is not. Given his bias towards the artist, which I am also able to confirm after referencing his social media, I think it is unreasonable to allow content to remain that is written from such a perspective. IF the article is to be included, it should only add to the page relevant and factual evidence. Until it is deemed necessary information and written honestly, it should be removed.GabrielleGrand9 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If the passage is going to be kept or moved to a different location/page, would it be possible to include this quote from the article: "While other artists’ fan cohorts also prefer direct-to-consumer purchasing for sustained sales runs and have tried tactics similar to ARMY’s, none have done so as effectively or with as much apparent coordination", which would at least acknowledge that BTS fans are not the only fanbase that have used sales in such a way? I also think it would be worth it to note the author of the article in the paragraph: Jeyup S. Kwaak. "Billboard itself" is not making comments in the article, the author is. Even if it was argued that the author represents Billboard, he is not involved in the way the Billboard charts are set up and does not exclusively write for Billboard. Aroseo (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ve chosen to agree with @GabrielleGrand9. The Billboard article towards said artist have been heavily criticized and questioned by many publishers. An editor took it upon himself to quote said article and only input false accusations. I’ve too reviewed @BawinV’s social media platforms and came across his across racists and bias hate comments towards said artist. Simply agreeing to just add BTS RM’s statement overlooks the fact that the information inputted is misinformation. It’s baffling to have other Twitter users opinions on said artists to be more relevant to said artists’ response. I hope we can all agree until said otherwise and deemed relevant, that the information is false and should be removed. Kedysha Jeanty (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out this: "The magazine underscored bulk sales via BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase unlimited copies of a song unlike iTunes". This is not true at all, and is not written like that in the article. The store doesn't allow unlimited purchases, you are limited to 4 copies per transaction. Every webstore operates the same way. This also reinforces my previous point-this should be deleted until we reach a consensus, and, if it's decided that it needs to be added, should be reworded completely. - Ïvana (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the section about this article is necessary. Reading the article itself shows that it was made in order to create doubt about the artists', their fans' and their company's credibility rather than to talk about relevant music-related topics. I'm not sure that the author quoting unofficial Twitter accounts belonging to biased fans/anti-fans (as said earlier) can be viewed as representative of Billboard itself, but the original edit seems to me as diffamatory as it doesn't state this properly (and instead makes it a direct accusation) nor includes the artists' reply. Yes, adding the reply also adds a bit of relevance, but the context of the accusation is still unclear and the fact that the original claims come from unofficial sources - correct me if I'm wrong - stays against Wikipedia's rules.  Andrateia (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Rather than simply stating your objections to the Billboard paragraph, it may be more productive to make specific suggestions for changes to the wording of that content, as User:Aroseo did above. For example, it might be worth noting that one of the sources in the article acknowledged that BTS fans are not the only fanbase that appear to have boosted sales numbers via direct-to-consumer purchasing. As to criticizing other aspects of the article not even mentioned in Wikipedia, there's not much point in discussing that here. As it currently stands, it's a relatively short paragraph that neutrally states the premise of the Billboard article and includes a reaction to it from the band. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Figured out how to edit (hopefully this is the last one, just trying to consolidate and update my points...)


 * Appreciate the discussion above, and just wanted to add this point, which concerned me about some of the dialogue so far.
 * While Billboard is an authority, it doesn't mean that points made about basic information quality checking should be thrown out the window. The usage of Twitter accounts by a professional journalist as evidence to imply an artist or their fans have participated in Billboard rule breaking, when that behavior once described in detail doesn't break Billboard rules and is permissible is one thing. Comparing that to a backdrop where apparently other artists or fans have done the same and, besides that, even more questionable stuff without comment from Billboard is another...
 * There are two reasons where a "well, since Billboard published it, it's fair game" stance is wrong.
 * Reason 1: if you think that a Billboard writer's usage of Twitter comments is enough quality evidence to support a point being published to a Wikipedia article, it should not matter that a Billboard writer did that...logical extension of your thinking would be that usage of Twitter comments in general can be considered quality evidence, "all things truly being equal." That's a slippery slope to descend down.
 * Reason 2: While Billboard is an authority in the field, that doesn't mean that they won't possibly write more text speculating about why an foreign artist like BTS has high charting numbers in the U.S. than what they would write about any domestic U.S. artist, despite there being equal evidence to question on all sides (and for this, I'm not taking fandom size into account because obviously, bigger fandoms will always have a higher volume of anything, but rather the extent of violative behavior that can be identified conclusively to at least one fan per fandom). BTS will get the highest scrutiny from mainstream media compared to the rest who are easier to trust, harder to exoticize, and possibly more unprofitable for Billboard to alienate...because why alienate those tend to go with the flow with whatever unstated set of rules the U.S. music industry follows, especially if it means that that artist is eventually giving more profit to the usual industry players? I am not writing out this Reason 2 with the goal of persuading people to believe one thing or another...I'm writing all this out to simply highlight why a "well, since Billboard published, it's fair game" reply makes me so uncomfortable. If such a limited mindset is accepted by Wikipedia editors about mainstream media articles, what's to keep Wikipedia from just being a mindless echo chamber of information that ought to better qualified and contextualized? Not a lot, practically speaking.


 * Context: I wrote all the above after selecting the "consider removing content" option, in case it wasn't clear.


 * I want to point out, after seeing the word "censorship" on the page: I don't think asking for proper informational quality or proper contextualization or qualification of badly-sourced and oddly-placed information is an attempt to censor. I'm sure that an outcome based on valid arguments of how a Wikipedia article section should be handled properly will be the best outcome, regardless of what I'm requesting as a user.


 * I realized belatedly that I should share an alternative, or a fall-back position, if content is not ultimately removed:
 * I would ask for this second-best alternative if content won't be removed (which I think could be the better position, depending on a factor I don't know, which is what's the consistent standard expected for content added to musician's Commercial Influence sections and is that being followed in the instant case):
 * 1) whatever is quoted from the Billboard article would be more properly excerpted from the sentence is drawn from, rather than oddly excerpted; if the article's original sentence included mention of "above-ground means" to qualify what became the resulting quote on Wikipedia, why not include that part of the article's original sentence for a more complete portrayal of what that article's sentence said?
 * 2) where an excerpt of the article including poorly-sourced information is included in the Wikipedia article, some corresponding appropriate qualification of that excerpt should also be included;
 * 3) The "inflating the commercial success of BTS in the United States" portion, which did not come from the original article, just seems so broad when the paragraph the article's quote came from clearly was about music chart rankings, so maybe it should have more limited language. After all, BTS's commercial success in the United States could include online concert and merchandise sales to U.S. consumers, U.S. advertising contracts, and as far as I could tell, the Billboard writer wasn't saying those were inflated.

Jpike (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, The Korea Times talked about the Billboard stuff on August 6 already (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2021/08/398_313388.html) Also please read: WP:TPG-- Lirim  |  Talk  23:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire point of this thread was to decide if the paragraph should be kept at all. As it is right now, is not an accurate representation of what the article actually says. And even if it was, I don't see how mentioning webstore sales adds anything of value when is not something unique to BTS. It certainly doesn't belong in the commercial influence section. I guess some people want to point out how they rely mostly on sales, but I would argue that is has already been covered, because all of their stats are mentioned with every new release. - Ïvana (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Seeing this from a neutral POV, I think the paragraph should be removed. It has no relation to "Commercial influence" because chart performance and commercial influence are not the same. If that were the case, we would have to include every musical artist's fandoms using mass-buying tactics, VPN streaming, etc to boost sales on their pages. Also, the original editor of this paragraph has negative bias towards the group. Their profile "assumes good faith" but their history says otherwise. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral website. If the editors are coming into this with an agenda, I don't believe it's fair, nor is it relevant to the page or subsection of "Commercial influence". It also doesn't help that the Billboard author used random Twitter fan accounts to get their point across which is the antithesis of journalistic integrity. Billboard aren't exempt from playing into biases and unprofessionalism. RainbowAva (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding webstore sales, this is what the article states:
 * [...] the chart-topping performance of BTS’ “Butter” in July, for example, was propelled mostly by sales, the bulk of which flowed directly through BTS’ own webstore, say sources familiar with the matter. That webstore, those sources say, does not recognize prior purchases or limit how many copies a fan can buy, unlike iTunes, which notes when someone already owns a copy.
 * What sources? How is that a valid statement? Every webstore order is limited to 4 copies, as seen here and here. That is something common to ALL webstores (examples 1 2 3), to ensure that it counts towards US charts, so I don't understand why it needs to be mentioned. To someone unfamiliar with the matter the wording makes it sound like BTS webstore works differently from others when that is simply not the case. You can't bulk buy music AND make it count because that's impossible per Billboard's own rules. - Ïvana (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these talks and. I agree that no everything published on Billboard should be considered as "100% reliable/must be published" as even reputable media have several problematic writers and questionable methods for data gathering, and not all authors are regular authors there, FYI. Anyway, the reason I wrote here is (and I'm not a BTS' stan, for the start) that the issue of "discredit BTS achievement by making several excuses and to hurt their reputation" has been going on far longer than what some of you think (as some users pointed out, the wiki writer who wrote the Billboard piece here is known to have a certain negative bias against the artist) so I think this is the right time to: 1. Adress that there are disputed toward their achievement made by several "journalists" or media (I used double quote since sometimes the said journalists already have questionable reputations as well). The specific Billboard article, with all the flaws and unreliable sources, is one example and could be quoted as well. 2. Adding other articles that exposed the things pointed out above, obviously from reputable sources with reliable credits. Here are some great sources from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2020/09/28/bts-didnt-cheat-their-way-to-no-1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2021/06/04/bts-arent-ruining-the-billboard-charts-they-were-already-broken/ -on-the-hot-100-they-just-beat-other-artists-at-their-own-game/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2021/07/01/btss-enduring-success-is-forcing-people-to-rethink-the-charts/amp/ Yes, they all came from the same person, but note that the articles used legit sources and credits, definitely not from Twitter users, pretty fair to point out things BTS and other artists did and did not. 3. My point is, this is a serious issue and it's not just about using several stan Twitter accounts or pop fandom ssues, but there is a sistematic effort (sometimes with racists undertone but I won't go there) to discredit certain artists achievements that might or need to be addressed. As Forbes pointed out in one article, the accusation will be always there whenever the artist (aka BTS) gain another success, gain another number 1, despite they and their fans are doing exactly what big western names are doing, and I believe we don't want to see similar Wikipedia debate again and again. IMO it's educative and informative as well. Rather than just deleting the Billboard article and hoping we won't see another one next time, I think we should address it, not by copying and pasting it and leave, making it a misleading article to all readers. We should put it in the right context, what it is all about. 4. This may or may not be put under the commercial influence.

Thank you. Beatrixx00 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, this the loophole of wikipedia, if a reliable source (in this case a very reputed source as well) states something its inclusion is justified. Instead of going in circles, a RFC should be conducted, because that is the best way reach to a conclusion.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  05:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (REDACT)


 * Forgot to add, I also agree with one of the comments above, if we put the Billboard article as reliable since it's, well, Billboard, despite their sole sources are few Tweets from random fans, then it means fans' tweets are reliable sources and we can use it directly as sources for Wikipedia articles as well, as all fans tweets should be treated equally, and not suddenly become more reliable just because certain media used it for their article.


 * A question for the context, if Billboard makes an article and the sources are random articles in Daily Mail or The Sun, could we use that Billboard article as well here, since it's Billboard?


 * And what if the media in question has proven to write incorrect stuff, for example, the "unlimited sales" as some people have stated. Do we still have to copy and paste everything because it's supposedly coming from reliable media?


 * I am asking this because I believe we should be more critical about what we read and what we put in Wikipedia, including "because it came from XXX magazine or website, then everything is okay" stance. A lot of people using Wiki as their information bible or something, and the reason why we have a talks page is that we want to improve the quality of the article here and elsewhere. I'm not just talking about this specific issue but in general.


 * Another input from me is, if we are still discussing this matter and not sure whether to put it, or remove it, or rephrase it, then we should remove it, at least temporarily. We can put it back after the final decision (whether as a full article or edited or in a different kind of article). Beatrixx00 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ah just read it (still not used to this talk format). I get it, it's the loophole of Wikipedia. Beatrixx00 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Would just like to point out one thing- does Wikipedia state repeated common features across all its articles? For example, does every wiki page on an actor state that they are a "human" that "acts in media"? Hence, is it necessary to only mention "fandom sales" for a BTS wiki page, when literally every single artist relies on their fans for the same thing? Unless all of you are willing to edit Dua Lipa's page to mention the bot streams and sales, Taylor Swift's 18 remixes to boost sales, SuperM's bundles to help them reach #1 (only to name a few), then I don't believe it should be imperative to cite an article about BTS that has already been slammed by several critics and journalists as being overly critical, negative, and rife with false information. LittlePixelz (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have read through the entirety of the talk and as seems the vast majority of the people participating agree that the passage should be completely removed, or at least edited to represent the reality and not the, as proven, biased opinion of a journalist or Twitter users (reading that users on Twitter were accepted as a valid source on Wikipedia of all places is truly concerning). Clearly, there seem to be very few stubborn editors who want to push their defamatory and borderline hateful towards the artist agenda... Dafnin2002 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be better to use Reliable Sources Noticeboard instead? Putting aside the accuracy of the article itself, the writer took his sources from fans' tweets. As stated by Wikipedia regarding Reliable sources/Perennial sources: There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

There was this case of Rolling Stones cited a tweet (which was from a real, verified person) for their article, and that RS article could be used in Wiki as long as RS was used just as a source that "someone tweet this" and that's it.

Without even talking about the context itself, it has to be decided whether the article could be even posted here in the first place, and if it can, what is the best practice.

I hope someone can put this toward FRC or Reliable Sources Noticeboard (or other) so it can be solved as soon as possible. Thanks. Beatrixx00 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I want to know why it is still currently up in its current form. As it is false that it is a loophole and it is false that it is unlimited as it has be stated multiple times. It should not be debatable that false info should be either corrected or removed. At its current state it is false so why is it still there? The info in the first place was misinformed but it was twisted further by someone's personal hate and vendetta. The tweets themselves that were used to quote are both from trolls on Twitter not a reliable source. One at the posting of the article spammed the section mocking the looks of the group. So again why is this info still in the section as if it is fact. Beeisclown (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the norms on Wikipedia is that, once something is under discussion, it shouldn't be changed until consensus is established, to avoid edit-warring. Due to the fact that a discussion (and a request for comment) has started regarding this piece of content, the norm is to leave it alone until everyone is in agreement. I hope this helped. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional material with commentary from other sources
In an attempt to provide more balance to the section, I've added the following: Other music writers have noted that fanbases of artists such as Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift have undertaken similar measures to influence chart positions, and that the those measures were neither illegal or unethical, and that fans engaging in those measures were "intelligent consumers leading global trends
 * There was also a good Forbes articles cited below, though unfortunately it might not meet WP:RS as it doesn't appear to be written by a Forbes staff member (see WP:FORBESCON). Please feel free to suggest additional sources or wording tweaks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if Complex and Elite Daily are considered reliable (they don't appear in WP:RS) but the Elite article links to some interesting ones highlighting pay-for-play in the radio industry and playlisting, which IMO gives more context to the whole mass buying thing. It opens the conversation about whether label-driven forced consumption or consumer-driven voluntary consumption is more representative of popularity. Complex also notes that MRC didn't raise any concerns about BTS sales (but we already knew that because Billboard filters those). - Ïvana (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a wording tweak to this new addition specifically, but I do think that the phrase "through above-board means" that the original editor purposely excluded when pulling the "loop hole" quote from the billboard article needs to be added ASAP.
 * The original billboard sentence was "Through above-board means, ARMY has long exploited loopholes in music chart rules (including those of Billboard) to propel BTS singles’ performance." This change also would bring the first paragraph into better alignment with your addition as both sources clearly state that these methods adhere to the rules of the charts.Baepsayed (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reworded that sentence here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the same changes should be applied in Butter (song) and Permission to Dance, where the commercial performance of the songs is the main point of focus. - Ïvana (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Regarding your comments about other sources above, I think both of those would likely qualify as reliable sources for music and entertainment topics, especially Complex. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with all of the modifications so far, except with this line: "The magazine underscored bulk sales via BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase unlimited copies of a song unlike iTunes". What the article says is "the chart-topping performance of BTS’ “Butter” in July, for example, was propelled mostly by sales, the bulk of which flowed directly through BTS’ own webstore". Saying that the majority of the sales came from the webstore is one thing, calling them bulk sales is another. Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but to me bulk sales implies that is fraudulent, and has no control at all; it gives the idea that anyone can go and buy thousands of copies at once and make them count for the charts when that is simply not the case. All webstores work the same way; I linked some examples in one of my previous comments. Pointing out how BTS webstore works without mentioning that is misleading. Also, sorry for all the corrections. I could edit it myself because I have extended confirmed rights, but English is my second language so I think it's better if someone else does it. - Ïvana (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Especially since Billboard have stated that they only count 4 sales in max. This is why the original sentences from the original editor don't make any sense to me from the first time I read it, since it implied that Billboard acknowledged that the artist' fans bought unlimited copies (and yet still counted all copies and gave the artist #1 for weeks, despite their own rules). The original edit strayed too far from the original context and misleading. I don't know whether the information that Billboard only count 4 sales is needed though since they never accuse the artist doing misdoing at the first place. Beatrixx00 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

GAN discussions
Hello BTS-interested editors. Wanted to make other editors aware of this discussion happening, this discussion happening, and this discussion happening. It looks like it's already been discussed on the talk page here, so I wanted to be very transparent the discussion is happening again. I'm confused as to why this article is being brought to GAN by an editor who has contributed 0.3% authorship to it (???), but, again in full transparency, I have never reviewed an article for GAN. --Kbabej (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Realizing I probably should have pinged you in the above comment, as I linked your talk pages. See previous discussion here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like just got impatient and did a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. GA reviews can take months to start, as there is usually always a backlog. As well, due to the fact that a lot of the sources are in a non-English language on the English Wikipedia (which is not an issue, by the way), the reviewer would need to be familiar with the language of the sources in order to assess the article correctly. Lastly, the 0.3% authorship is a bit of an issue, as the editor did not consult with any of the major contributors of the article, such as  (18.5%),  (16.8%), or  (14.9%), as mentioned at WP:GAN/I. Granted, this rule isn't a must, and I have seen multiple successful GAs that didn't follow this, but it's still common courtesy. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no forum shopping here. My place in the editor listings for this article is currently at #22 out of 1,400 editors. My reasons for nominating the article are listed above in the discussion here on this Talk page from 2-3 months ago which you can read above. You also may not have seen the discussion here with the editors you mention in your note regarding the very large page size of the article. Open to further comments from Kbabej and Doggy or questions as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping is when you raise the same issue at multiple places. From the diffs provided above, it seems as if you asked three people the exact same question, also known as forum shopping. As well, I did not talk about the page size. I talked about the volume of sources that are in a non-English language, but not about the size of the page as a whole. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kbabe was asked about his GAN because his nomination was next to my own with the two nominations standing for several months. It looks like he has been waiting for a review for a very long time. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sales
Is there any source that has BTS worldwide sales date? Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: inclusion of content
Should the last paragraph in BTS paraphrasing this Billboard article be kept, moved to another section, modified, or removed? Concerns were raised because the fragment highlights practices common to all artists/fandoms, giving the impression that they are unique to BTS and their fans. - Ïvana (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Before anyone else engages in this discussion, please be aware that this talk page has gained heavy amounts of off-wiki attention in the past day or so. I just want to make everyone aware of that. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove: The problem is not with the content or the reliability of the source but the relevance of the content in the article. The paragraph talks about the practices which is highly exercised by K-pop fans in general and is not exclusive to BTS. Even it is not exclusive to South Korea but is also relevant to Western artists like Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande. So having a paragraph indicating a practice exclusive to a single artist is not justifiable. Giving extra weight to a single source is also against widely accepted standard of neutral point of view on wikipedia, when there are other equally reliable and reputable sources talking just opposite of the Billboard article. This article is a biography of living persons, so the question asking the inclusion of such controversial topic should have been the rfc instead rethinking after its inclusion.
 * This controversial topic should be ideally on pages like Fandom culture in South Korea, or should be included on the articles directly concerned, which is the commercial performance of the songs. And it has been already included: Butter (song) and Permission to Dance.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  18:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Moreover, the fact that there is a horribly untrue statement that fans are allowed to “purchase unlimited copies” just paints the whole process (which is true for every single artist) as something shady that is practiced only by BTS and their fandom. LittlePixelz (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove: Agree with all of the reasons given by -ink&amp;fables . I'd also like to point out that the paragraph as it currently stands misleadingly removes the phrase "Through above-board means" from the sentence "Through above-board means, ARMY has long exploited loopholes in music chart rules." If Billboard itself describes BTS's charting as "above-board" I see no justification for its inclusion in this section of the article. I'd also once again like to point out that this question revolves charting while the commercial influence section of this page is about economic impact. Excluding the paragraph currently under discussion, there is no discussion of song charting anywhere else in the section. Baepsayed (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove: I feel like this is a known issue which should be implemented into the Hot 100 article under a new section. I mean the whole thing with charts is, that they are meant to be an accurately representations of a country's music market. Do any charts properly do this? Not really, but this is an endlessy long discussion. Do the Billboard rules make any proper sence? No. Do for e.x. the Oricon rules make more sense? Yes, but people just end up buying 200 copies of a single, which they throw out afterwards. It truly does not matter what the charts say and never really did. It has no point in the BTS article. I would however keep the sections in the "Butter" and "Permission to Dance" articles, as multiple reliable independent sources have reported about it — see the links posted by ink&fables.— Lirim  |  Talk  21:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove: In its current state, it should be removed. To keep it here will need heavy modification and not in the current context.1. It's wrongly put in the Commercial Influence Section. The section doesn't talk about the chart, but rather the impact of the artist on the world. A practice commonly done by many fandoms of many artists doesn't need any special mention on the artist's page.2. This topic or issue, should anyone want to mention it, should be on Fandom (in general) Pages, as the practice is done not only by fans of a certain region (such as South Korea). As various reliable sources have stated, fandom of western artists does it as well. It might have a place on [Stan_Twitter] as well (in a certain context).3. There are a lot of counter-arguments from reliable sources, so only pick this specific article for the artist's page is against Wikipedia's rule of neutrality. 4. Please note, as has been stated, the practice is very common everywhere else, so mentioning the practice in specific songs can be done to any artists whose fandoms did the practice. Beatrixx00 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or reword to better summarize WHATABOUTX is not really an argument which should be made. This situation has been raised by a reliable outlet, and therefore there is content which can be summarized from it and be included in an article. The fact that no outlet has written about another artist's similar practices or not does not take away from the fact that Billboard has published this piece about this group. If the claim is reputable may be a discussion worth having, but the mere fact that Billboard has written about this is noteworthy in and of itself. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Billboard is not the first and the only publisher/critic to write about this. Tom Breihan of Stereogum was one of the first to raise this issue (BTS And Their Fan Army Are Rendering The Pop Charts Useless) and there have been subsequent reporting disregarding them like by Forbes (BTS Aren't Ruining The Billboard Charts. They Were Already Broken.) Similarly there are reporting by The Korea Times ('BTS and ARMY are playing fair to conquer Billboard chart') and Billboard on this topic. To keep in simple words is that, this whole thing is controversial and are opinions of authors/critics of/in those news/magazine articles and are not facts. My concerns are not over its inclusion on Wikipedia but about inclusion in this particular biography of BTS. This whole thing is a controversy surrounding BTS' recent record-breaking commercial success in US music market and doesn't belong in Commercial influence and other ventures. It may be kept in Career as the controversy is related to their commercial success of recent songs ("Butter" and "Permission to Dance), but is it possible to summarise entire controversy in just one or two lines.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  08:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove as written The thrust of the middle section of the Billboard article is about how organized BTS fans are and that it annoys other artists' fans. The article never states that BTS or its fans are committing any fraudulent actions (it attributes those insinuations to "fans of some competing acts"). The writer basically spends way too many words channelling the complaints of some fans that BTS fans are better at playing by the chart rules. As the para in this article is written, it misrepresents the Billboard article by quoting long exploited loopholes in music chart rules and leaving off Through above-board means. I think the Billboard article could be used for a section in this article about BTS's fandom, including some of the methods they use to support the group's chart success, but what's currently written lacks sufficient context to properly summarize the source, while it's currently worded in such a way as to imply misdoings. (Disclaimer: I am not a BTS fan; I don't think I've ever heard one of their songs.) Schazjmd   (talk)  00:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per Doggy54321 comment, would like to inform everyone that there has been an off-wiki "canvassing" ongoing on Twitter in which there has been multiple tweets calling users (fans) to come to this talk (with the URL of this talk included in the tweet) to call for the removal. Hence, closing editor please scrutinize the accounts before closing.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove from this article: In the current state on this article and in Butter and Permission to Dance, it's written as if the practice is created by the BTS community, when the fact is that it has been happenning with the other artists (including foreign acts) as well hence it should be expand to clarify the issues with sources like Forbes coverage prior to Billboard ones. If the decision is to be removed, then the paragraph of concern in this article should be moved to other article that are more appropriate such as Fandom culture in South Korea or Billboard Charts or Billboard K-Town. Whereas, for the paragraph of concern in Butter and Permission to Dance, it should be retain and expanded for clarity.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment No opinion on the matter, but could be worth adding to the "Butter" article information from this Forbes article, which includes a claim from what Forbes calls "YouTuber and critic" Mark Grondin that Columbia Records had issued a second ISRC code for Butter's alternate album cover version, which Grondin labelled as "in violation of ISRC guidelines". I'd also include the commentary from the article's author, who pointed out that "for years, BTS and other non-Western artists have been shut out of pop radio, othered at awards shows and ridiculed in print and on air", and that "it’s downright laughable to frame a five-week run at No. 1 as anything other than a smashing success".
 * I don't want to add this without consultation, given this discussion, but it seems to me like this directly concerns "Butter"'s comercial performance, and the concern from Grondin is a clear one addressed in a reliable source. If this is in the wrong place, apologies! --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @LivelyRatification: I don't know whether this is the right place to discuss that. But to answer that, in my opinion, it's a very tricky one. Grondin labelled it as "violation" is one thing, but whether it directly affected the commercial performance, and how much, is unclear and it could be just a matter of opinion, and not fact. I have read the Forbes article (I actually posted the link on another page) and the actual issue Forbes want to highlight is about the treatment and double standards Non-Western artists received (which might need its own article as a whole) rather than just about a certain song achievement. Grondin then replied to the Forbes article, that he wished BTS would stay in their Korean's roots rather than being popular in US Market. Or at least, that's what I took from his words. So the article is more complex and I'm afraid picking few lines and put it on Butter's page won't do justice to the context the article tries to portray. Beatrixx00 (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, but reword Hey, I'm not really in the drama about this specific article issue per se, so I've looked at all sides of the perspective. From what I've seen, the issue is some BTS fans don't want the part about Billboard mentioning potential fan manipulation of charts. Personally, I do think that while all online fanbases have issues with manipulating charts for their artists charting gain, Armies have been most notable for the rabid chart manipulation; (especially according to Billboard themselves.) If you look at the numbers, BTS's number ones are much more driven by mass-buying rather than other number one hits like good 4 u, which are more driven by streaming and radio. I think it is worthy mentioning that fans have used the charts for their gain, however, reword it so that it's clear that it's not just an issue with BTS. Other rabid fandoms such as Swifties and Bardigang are also known for manipulating the charts, albeit to a lesser extent. In my opinion, I see the hype for BTS as similar to the hype for One Direction in my pre-teen years; just a lot of teenage girls excited for these meh/okay-ish pop boy superstars that sing about love or whatever. Just my 2c as another editor. shanghai. talk to me 11:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove per all of the very valid reasons outlined above by fellow editors, whose opinions+concerns I also share. Though I initially decided I wasn't going to participate in this discussion, in light of everything that has transpired over the past few days, I would like offer some additional comments.1) While BB is a reliable source, a reliable source citing info from an unreliable source does not suddenly make said info reliable/worth mentioning. BB writers have frequently quoted Koreaboo/Allkpop/twitter and other such unusable sources in their pieces in the past, and we avoid citing those specifics ones altogether. This instance is no different.2) The attributing of that entire pgraph of text to a single source and giving it its own separate subsection was totally incorrect from the get go. Subjects, especially ones considered "controversial", must receive considerable coverage across multiple reliable sources to be mentioned. That criteria has never changed. That was how the t-shirt incident in 2018 was handled, after something of a similar nature occurred with its original hasty addition to the page. Had the wording of the edit been more neutral (the source itself is already very much not so) and additional sources mentioned (as we have seen a few do exist) to provide more context, this would not have snowballed the way it did. I think it was ink&fables who said it above, but if the info was so pressing to mention on the main BTS page, it could have been summarized appropriately in 2–4 sentences and then added to the corresponding year section. Or included in other more relevant articles (also mentioned above) instead of this one. It is completely irrelevant to this page+the section it was added to. But again, for obvious reasons, this didn't happen, which brings me to my next point.3) Based on my experiences (beginning last year when Dynamite was released) w the editor who sparked all of this, they have exhibited a particular bias against BTS/and BTS-related editors, that they do not show when editing Taylor Swift-related pages for example. Info they insist be mentioned on BTS articles (which was/is often added directly by them), is noticeably excluded from song+album articles for Swift (of which they are a frequent contributor- I only checked a few after my initial suspicions so I cannot speak for everything they contribute to), even though the the sources used on those pages mention similar content. While this discussion is ideally not really about the original editor, their motivations behind what they did and the way they wrote it do warrant cause for concern, especially given the fact that their edit count (among other things) makes them an experienced editor, and to an extent gives their edits/words more weight than those of others w a lesser count. I don't consider myself perfect or better given that I have made my own mistakes on WP (some very recently), and I acknowledge my faults, but my discomfort w this particular editor has only grown over time after a noticeable pattern emerged, and now this incident, coupled with all the proof found online about their very real bias against the artist (that previously was only speculation on my part) which clearly influenced their editing, should be taken into consideration. Idk if it would be considered a conflict of interest, but it does raise a red flag to me at least. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Summoned by bot. It's notable info that's covered in a major music publication.  Regardless of the fact that other musicians' fans also do this, the activity may not be reported in major publications.  If it is, include the info in those musicians' articles also. Not opposed to shortening the info a bit. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove After reading everything, I think it's better to remove the paragraph because:1. Billboard itself didn't state that fans were bulk buying. There is no statement from any official Billboard representative regarding this issue in the article. All I see are tweets of fans of other artists claiming bulk buying which are not reliable receipts. Since I don't see his position (he doesn't look like a senior writer for Billboard as he doesn't have a profile there), IDK if this writer can act as a representative for Billboard or not.2. As fellow editors have already pointed out, you cannot bulk buy from the webstores because the limit is 4 copies and Billboard also has a system to verify each sale. It's strange that the writer didn't consult a senior Billboard representative regarding this matter at all and decided to use tweets as receipts.Anyway, I hope this issue is resolved as soon as possible. Facts Spiller (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In an August 2021 cover story on BTS, Billboard highlighted how the band's fans have "long exploited loopholes in music chart rules" to inflate the commercial success of BTS in the United States, especially in the cases of singles such as "Butter" and "Permission to Dance". The magazine underscored bulk sales via BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase unlimited copies of a song unlike iTunes, and their crowdfunding efforts, such as utilizing PayPal to collect money from fans around the world and invest it in buying BTS' music that will count toward US sales. In response to the claims, the group‘s leader RM said: "But if there is a conversation inside Billboard about what being No. 1 should represent, then it's up to them to change the rules and make streaming weigh more on the ranking. Slamming us or our fans for getting to No. 1 with physical sales and downloads, I don't know if that's right ... It just feels like we're easy targets because we're a boy band, a K-pop act, and we have this high fan loyalty." [509] In an August 2021 cover story on BTS, Billboard highlighted how the band's fans have "through above-board means" taken advantage of loopholes in chart tabulations to boost the ranks of singles such as "Butter" and "Permission to Dance" on those charts. The article noted that while singles on the Hot 100 typically rely on streaming and airplay to chart, "Butter" performance was driven mostly by bulk sales from BTS' webstore, which allows fans to purchase multiple copies of a song (unlike iTunes) and by their crowdfunding efforts, such as utilizing PayPal to collect money from fans around the world to invest it in buying BTS' music that will count toward US sales. An article in The Korea Times noted that fanbases of artists such as Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande have undertaken similar measures to influence chart positions, that those measures were neither illegal or unethical, and that fans engaging in those measures were "intelligent consumers leading global trends."[509] In response to the claims, the group's leader RM said: "But if there is a conversation inside Billboard about what being No. 1 should represent, then it's up to them to change the rules and make streaming weigh more on the ranking. Slamming us or our fans for getting to No. 1 with physical sales and downloads, I don't know if that's right ... It just feels like we're easy targets because we're a boy band, a K-pop act, and we have this high fan loyalty."[510]
 * Interim note. At present it looks like 10-11 editors for removal, 1 editor for keeping, and 2-3 editors for removal if there is no alternate rewrite. Since there is no alternate rewrite at this time, then it looks like 12-13 editors for removal and 1 editor for fully keeping. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been a rewrite based on suggestions above; see diff here.
 * Before rewrite:
 * After rewrite:
 * Furthmore, WP:!VOTE, this isn't a simple matter of tallying up "!votes." A closing editor should note that a number of individuals participating in this conversation have made few to zero edits outside of this topic. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to misinterpret what you said so do you mean that the closing editor shouldn't be someone that has largely contributed to their page or that they need to be someone who hasn't contributed to it? If not either of those what did you mean to say? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected a misspelling in my original comment (not -> note). My comment was simply noting that RfCs are not a simple matter of tallying !votes; !votes of WP:SPA accounts or !votes that don't make good Wikipedia policy-based arguments don't carry the same weights as others.  As to how an RfC closes, there are a number of different ways it can end, including being closed by an uninvolved editor. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The RfC was I think opened for the purpose of establishing consensus for this deletion, and not for voting. In this case, it appears that there may be a single hold-out against 10-11 editors wanting the removal. If Jamie believes that the RfC should remain open for another 3 weeks because of this single rewrite then that could be done. The other editors seem to have made a case for WP:SNOW in the presence of what appears to be a single hold-out. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTESTACK and WP:SPA apply here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove: does not seem like enough WEIGHT to deserve much mention, seems a bit off the topic of the band per se, and I just don’t favor giving much space to negatives unless there was an actual and significant effect or coverage.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep with rewording - with rewords, it seems notable enough that their leader addressed it with specific statements on Billboard's records. Wikipedia isn't meant to be neutral of criticism, rather what allegations were made seems to be noteworthy itself. Even if its a symptom of the Kpop industry as a whole, I don't think its unfair to mention. That Billboard is biased or attacking BTS specifically is how the fandom wants to interpret it would be improper - pretty much any top Kpop group to make in America would be given fair criticism here. Evaders99 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove:1) Like other users above, i question the validity of the article/statements in it in general, as it gives too much weight to random twitter user tweets/claims. 2) Whole paragraph (both here in wikipedia and the article) make no sense - contradicting claims in a single sentence. Such as claiming that ARMY is using loopholes, but saying that Billboard doesn't count above the cap. So how is it a loophole, if it's part of rules? Multiple versions (remixes) supposed to be the loophole the fans supposedly exploit? Encouraging other fans to buy is the loophole? What? 3) "say sources familiar with the matter. That webstore, those sources say, does not recognize prior purchases or limit how many copies a fan can buy". I too can write complete lies and claim "sources" made them as to not have any accountability, but how valid is the source if even basic facts are wrong - that unlike their claims, there is in fact limits on buys on webstore (BTS's and any other artist's) for the sales to count for charting as per Billboard's own rules.4) if we go beyond the fact that article itself is mishmash of wrong information and claims based on random tweeters, i do not see how this fits into "Commercial Influence". It sticks out like a sore thumb. Whole section is about quantifiable amounts - economic impact of this or that in money value, being the top of such or such most influential list (note the word influence), about percentages of GDP.. And then we have "loopholes in chart tabulations" (rules (in article) and tabulations (in wiki text) are not the same) and fans crowdfunding. If you're THAT desperate to have this information that it just has to appear somewhere, then at least put it somewhere where it actually fits, and as it's about charting songs, then i guess in articles about those songs (butter?). And even then it should be reworded because it's paraphrasing the article so bad it's basically lying. One of examples ""Butter" performance was driven mostly by bulk sales from BTS' webstore" while article says "propelled mostly by sales, the bulk of which", which are 2 completely different statements. Kleool (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:This was initiated on August 28th and the responses have significantly slowed down so shouldn't it be closed? Or shouldn't we be able to make a decision regarding the content's inclusion in their article? 52-whalien (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My universe and regarding sales
In the para where you have told about 5 billboard hot 100 number 1 and compared to since Michael Jackson era, can you also add my universe topping the billboard hot 100 there and compare it with The Beatles era.?

In the line where it's written more than 20 M album sale on gaon. Can someone change it to "more than 20M physical album sales" as many people tend to get confuse and think it as records(digital + physical). Data For Life (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Philanthropy section
Talking about Love myself campaign.

Can someone update this information from

"As of March 2021, the campaign has raised ₩3.3 billion ($2.98 million) globally." to "As of Oct 2021, the campaign has raised ₩4.2 billion ($3.96 million) globally."

Source:- https://entertain.v.daum.net/v/20211006082258749 Data For Life (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone has doubt with that news report/source then one can add this official news/source from unicef.

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-and-bts-celebrate-success-groundbreaking-love-myself-campaign Data For Life (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Data For Life Fyi, the source (Newsen) you've provided is already considered as reliable source as per WP:KO/RS. Furthermore, there are 20+ same news reported by different publisher/news media available on Naver hence I doubt it would even be considered as suspicious. In addition, I have added the UNICEF source you have provided into the article.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Forbes korea and forbes celebrity 100
Change request from "Forbes Korea named BTS the most influential celebrities of Korea in 2018 and 2020, and BTS ranked 43rd in the Forbes Celebrity 100 (2019) as one of the world's top-earning celebrities" To "Forbes Korea named BTS the most influential celebrities of Korea in 2018, 2020 and 2021. BTS ranked 43rd in the Forbes Celebrity 100 (2019) and 47th in the Forbes Celebrity 100 (2020) as one of the world's top-earning celebrities" Forbes korea source: http://jmagazine.joins.com/forbes/view/333966 Forbes Celebrity source: https://www.forbes.com/celebrities/ Data For Life (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Bulking down article
This article page is so large it's daunting. BTS break so many records that a fourth of the article is just that. I would not know how to begin to address that, as all the records they beat can be placed, but it's just so many. There are other sections I thought we might be able to make their own page for though. And there are some records on here that have their own page on wiki already, such as things with the Love Myself Campaign. I think only major things about that should be placed in the BTS page since it has its own article. Michael Jackson has his own legacy and influence page, so there is precedence for bulking down at least that section. Britney Spears has her own products and endorsements page as well, although that section on here isn't too big. I think we can have a bit of leeway with a new page though. A few years ago I remember the BTS page had to be bulked down some then and I participated in that as well. I know the GA review is in the future and a lot probably don't want to mess with the article too much because of that, but I thought I'd at least bring it up and see what people on here thought. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Back in April, I actually inquired about a legacy and influence page being created because a previous editor suggested it. But getting that kind of page created has shown to be quite difficult. Have a look at this Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've proposed having a separate page created for the Legacy and Cultural Impact section. I have no problem with doing the task but help is needed. It's worth giving it a try even if we run into some difficulties. Tagging ErnestKrause, would you perhaps be interested in helping with this? I just know that day by day this page will only get larger so something needs to be done. Feel free to mention other editors you think might wanna help. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind helping with it, but it is better to have someone else who knows all regulations as well. I just know general one's I've been told while editing. When I last helped bulk down the page it was making the intro smaller. Not difficult, per say, just tedious. No one was too upset with what it ended up as. I was thinking the summary of it on the main page would be the hardest part of it. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks similar to the idea that had last week when he suggested a page split for the Career section as a whole, and he actually made the edit in the main article to show the space savings which would result. The article is currently at 411 Kb which seems too large by general Wikipedia standards. Gyan's edit showed that splitting the Career section into a separate article would reduce the article size by 235Kb making it have a total page size of 174Kb after the possible page split. Another idea would be to shorten the Career subsection by some fixed percentage across all sections, for example, by 50% or half of the current size. That would shorten the total article size by about 120 Kb to about 290Kb. If the Career section is split to a new page and the main article version of the Career section is reduced in size to ten percent of the current size, then the revised article size after the page split would be about 205Kb. Your idea to reduce the Legacy section and the Influence section, even by half size, would be useful though perhaps more should be considered. It would be useful for the BTS article to start to be reduced down in size from its current 411Kb size. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The career section is by far the largest section on here, but I've never seen someone make a separate page for the career section on here. I would not begin to know how to start something like that. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you think we should start first? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It makes no sense to split the career section into a seperate article. The career section is quite literally the key piece and the most important part of a good article about an artist. The biggest issue with the career section is that it is just a chronological order of records broken. The easiest way to bulk down the article is, by removing the majority of the record stuff and create a Cultural impact of BTS article, similar to Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Madonna etc. Michael Jackson's article is around 240k bytes, with a detailed description of his career, artistry and personal life. All these individual song records can be summarized in one or two sentence, with all the details being put in the individual articles. The 2021 section right now is just Song 1 released and broke this record, song 2 dropped soon later and broke song 1's records and a bunch older ones too etc.-- Lirim  |  Talk 
 * Never said anything about doing that. But I definitely think we can proceed with the creation of Cultural impact of BTS. It's a lot to do but nothing will get done if no one takes the initiative. Actually I'm the one who actively updates the 2021 section as no else does. Given that I do that I don't know if the editors would want to bother with this. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think moving a lot of the records to a cultural impact page makes a lot of sense. A lot of the article would be bulked down that way. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you think we should start the process of getting it moved to the Cultural impact of BTS page? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreement with all three editors and setting up the article split page at this time for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS. Ukiss2 and Btspurplegalaxy should be encouraged to start transferring the material into the Cultural impact article at this time. Separately, after reading the various articles for Cultural Impact of Elvis, Madonna, The Beatles, Michael Jackson and others, there is another question regarding whether it might be useful to do this article split and include the BTS Commercial influence as well and at the same time. On the basis of the other Cultural impact articles just mentioned, some of them include Commercial influence sections and others do not. Because of the size issues with the BTS main page, the new page for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS has both of them included. Both Ukiss2 and Btspurplegalaxy should be able to start transferring the material out of the Career section whenever they are ready into the newly created article for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've started up a talk on their main page for bigger things to be removed. I've started going through the article and removing some of the parts that are too detailed and belong on their respective pages. I'm going to note what each removal is in case an editor disagrees. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe @Btspurplegalaxy Please add Template:Copied to both articles as per WP:COPYWITHIN.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2021
BTS broke new records with their song "Butter" with five Guinness World Records. With according to Youtube BTS broke records for “most viewers for the premiere of a music video on YouTube" with 3.9 million viewers for the premiere of "Butter" on May 21, 2021. Butter also broke records for having 108.2 million views in the first 24 hours of its released. Butter also broke “the most streamed track on Spotify in the first 24 hours” with having 11,042,335 global streams in just one day.  Butter was also in number one on the Billboard charts for nine weeks in a row. On August 26, 2021 BTS released a remix of Buttter with Megan Thee Stallion.  BTS was appointed to be Presidential Envoy for Future Generations & Culture by President Moon of South Korea to build and shape on their country and to take a stance on global issues. With this they already traveled to New York in the United States to be part of the 76th United Nations on September 20 2021. They talked on issues like climate change, how young people felt during COVID-19, and more. They also performed Permission to Dance.  More than 980,000 people watched the United Nations Assembly on th United Nations official Youtube channel with tens of thousands viewed on other Youtube channels and platforms.  One of BTS' songs will be part of the Eternals from Marvel's soundtrack. The song called "Friends" which is sang by Kim Taehyung and Park Jimin of BTS.  RNCCNR (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a Butter page where more detailed info can go. I will be placing the "Friends" info on the Map of the Soul: 7 page as it is more relevant there. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2021
41.223.74.4 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Kim Taehyung, member of BTS was voted the most handsome man in the world two years in a row
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

BTS New Webtoon
Should we mention it on here or is there somewhere else that is better to mention literary information? I know we put Save Me on here, but was unsure if we were going to continue mentioning such info in the future. It sounds like Hybe is planning on making a lot of such goods in the future so I thought it would be good to have clarity. Here is a link to the info on the webtoon. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - EDIT- Since no one said anything I'm just going to add it. Maybe because the links were in Korean? Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=112&aid=0003494383
 * https://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=438&aid=0000040333
 * Keep it simple. This is not due to come out until Jan 2022 and there are no reviews out about it at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

For subscription locked refs
For references that are subscription locked (mainly Billboard ones, but also any others to which this may apply), include the 'url-access=subscription' parameter in the citation and mark the archive as 'dead' instead of writing "subscription only" in the 'title' parameter as has presently been done for nine references. If registration is required instead of subscription then put 'registration' in place of it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ama update
From 6 to 9 awards "in awards and nomination subtopic" Data For Life (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Also mention artist of the year for ama "just like how top social artist is mentioned for bbma description " Data For Life (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Columbia Records and Universal in infobox
According to to this article by Medium there is a huge difference between signing a record deal and a distribution deal with a particular label. The WSJ citation for Universal clearly says that BTS currently has marketing and distribution deal with Columbia and The Orchard respectively, and will be changing to Universal later this year. So both Columbia and Universal should be removed from infobox. Also one more arguement, BTS was never featured as Columbia Records Artists on their website, none of their albums ever featured Columbia label, none of their RIAA certifications has Columbia mentioned, its just Bighit Music.Rupturestriker (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion
@Btspurplegalaxy Why did you revert me? With no explanation given? The whole point of the cultural page is so that there isn't a billion first's on the main page and the page doesn't go back up to 400k bytes after all the work that was done to reduce the article. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We've already downsized the article to an appropriate amount. What you moved to that page isn't even suitable for it. That page is literally for the Cultural and legacy impact of BTS. Removing content from the main page will only unnecessarily enlarge that one. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at other cultural pages? Read the discussion for it? I'm pretty sure of the latter since you were supposed to help with the cultural page. Firsts are records broken. They are allowed to go on cultural pages. Please read/re-read the discussion about downsizing as well. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-read it but I believe you do not need to remove any further content from the main page. The article has already been bulked down and has undergone a GA review. I know with time it will likely get bigger but as it stands nothing more needs to be done. The page isn't even actively maintained so don't worry about an influx of content being added. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2021
i am a BTS fan since they started and see some of the facts is not real, can i please change it Kim-So123 (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2021
BTS performed "Butter" and "Permission to Dance" for YouTube's ESCAPE 2021 livestream. Coolguy2663 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  03:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing
Why is this page only protected for certain users to update? Rustyleigh (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Rustyleigh: You can find the reason in the page log. In this case, it was because of constant edit-warring. You are welcome to ask the protecting administrator,, on their talk page to elaborate further and/or request a change in protection. Regards So  Why  16:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sentence phrasing
"A group of three albums that the group began the world tour extension of their Red Bullet Tour in June, titled 2015 Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet." - this sentence is not written/phrased correctly and needs to be fixed. It reads like a fragment rather than a complete sentence. Does anyone know what exactly whoever wrote it meant to say? I can't correct it otherwise. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was modified during the process of moving big sections of the article to the cultural impact page. This is the diff; the original sentence read "The group began the world tour extension of their Red Bullet Tour in June, titled 2015 Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet, visiting cities throughout Asia, Oceania, North America, and Latin America". I restored it, but feel free to reword it! - Ïvana (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Comet Zombie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2022
116.15.172.56 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I would like to change their group name.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Add portals in see also section.
WP: portal says that, ex.South Korea Success think (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why this article not in UK Eng?
British English is universal language, but this article's talk page says this article is written in American English. I suggest to write this article in UK Eng. Beacuse American Eng is not easy to understand for people, who learned UK Eng.Success think (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised that American English is also universal and is the most influential form of English worldwide. Those learning American English would also have difficulty if reading British English. There is no preference for Wikipedia articles as long it is consistent WP:ENGVAR - however, BTS's appearance on major US Billboard charts would indicate more notability within the American English influence. Evaders99 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022
Career -> 2021–present: BTS, the Best, "Butter" and "Permission to Dance" -> Final Paragraph -> Final sentence is incorrect. Their tour dates will not be taking place at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, but at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas. However, simultaneous "Live Play" livestreams of the concert are planned to be held at the MGM Grand. The current source is still accurate.
 * ) Wasd1243 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)