Talk:Run BTS

Season 4
Is there any reliable source stating that season 4 started with episode 112? --  Chiya ko92 10:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Episode Numbering
I have been referencing this Wikipedia article for the episode numbers, and have been constantly confused as to why they never seemed to be right. I figured out where the discrepancy occurred (Part 2 of Episode 6 in Season 1), and was about to edit it when I noticed the footnote stating "This article counts "Confession" as two episodes. As such, the series' overall number of episodes will always differ by one compared to what is displayed in-show." I have read the discussion about this on WikiProject Television, but thought it would be better to voice my thoughts on the talk page. I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision: it is pointlessly confusing, unnecessarily technical, and useful to absolutely no one. While I understand why it was put in place (and I appreciate those who have worked to do so), I move to change the episode numbering to line up with the official numbering. Thanks. Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with it either. People come to this page to figure out which episode they want to watch and then it's not even numbered corrected. It makes no sense to me.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

BTS singular or plural? Past or present tense?
In the episode descriptions, the tense alternates between present and past (e.g. "BTS play" vs "BTS played"), and "BTS" is used as both a singular and plural noun (e.g. "BTS compete" vs "BTS competes"). Not a huge deal, but maybe one or the other should be decided on and kept standard throughout the article for consistency (there's probably a published guideline for which should be used on Wikipedia). For what it's worth, the main article for BTS uses "BTS" as a singular noun. Luxatron (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * in case you haven't realized it, multiple editors write the episode summaries, not a single person, so the quality of language used varies. I have been slowly cleaning it up season by season (completed S1, and S2 is where I'm at presently) but it takes time to fix all of it. Someone could come tomorrow and add a new episode (or tweak the wording of an existing one) and the grammar they use will be completely different to the rest of the page. There's no way to ensure 100% consistency because everyone's English levels varies. You're welcome to help with the corrections if it isn't being done quickly enough for you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think present tense is correct, by the way, which seems to be what Carlobunnie has been doing so far. We describe events of an episode in present tense to match the reader's experience when watching them. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sorry to have caused you offense, since I was merely asking so that I could structure my own contributions in line with whatever the correct tense would be. I have also contributed heavily to the article, both under this username and an older user which I no longer have the password to. But regardless, message received, I "realize it" and thanks for the reminder that I'm "welcome to help" as though I haven't already done so extensively. Luxatron (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is you think was being said to you, but I only explained why the tenses aren't consistent in line with your question, and said you're free to adjust whatever hasn't been fixed yet to help that along. Idk anything about your contributions to the page and made no comments in that regard. There was no other msg of any kind being conveyed beyond what you asked. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Republic World, Pinkvilla, Meaww & Bollywood Life as sources
Per WP:RSPSOURCES, Republic World is considered wholly unreliable and should not be used at all. Meaww, recently added to the list in July, is considered to be generally unreliable and better sources should be used in place of it. Based on this discussion I had, which included editors from WP:FILM/INDIA where all 3 sources are considered unreliable and not to be used for their films/shows, PV+BL are basically tabloid sites so I don't think we should be using them either. Notifying as they recently added several references from these sites to the page. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Carlobunnie If they are considered unreliable why do they have a wiki page? That doesn't really make sense to me. A wiki page makes it notable.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a wikipedia article doesn't equate to reliability, which is different from notability. TMZ also has a page but is a well known tabloid site and shouldn't be used. Same for many other sources listed there, including ones blacklisted sitewide on WP. Check the page, it offers detailed explanations about the quality of various sources. To bring it closer to home, Soompi also has a page but is considered unreliable by WP:KO/RS as we both know. Would you also argue that it too should be used just because of that? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , why doesn't it make sense to you? Notability and reliability are different things. If a news organisation recieves significant independent coverage from secondary sources then it's considered notable and can have an article on Wikipedia. That doesn't have any relation to whether the organisation itself is reliable source for citing content on Wikipedia, similarly some sources which are not notable can be reliable although that doesn't appear to apply here. The only one among the four sources which has an Wikipedia page is Republic World but there is consensus that it is generally unreliable, note that it uses Soompi (e.g, , , , etc) and Allkpop (e.g , , , , etc) to source most of its information on Korean popular culture, both of which are also considered unreliable by WikiProject Korea.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 02:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Carlobunnie User:Tayi Arajakate Then under that very definition Soompi is notable?? People started accepting soompi awards a few years ago because other sources were reporting on their news. So why does that not count as reliable considering that's the definition you gave?Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're mixing up what notable and reliable mean. They aren't the same. Soompi is notable enough for an article on WP because it has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, but it is not reliable because its content is user-generated i.e. written by fans, or attributed to writers w no journalistic credentials, among other things. And to clarify, more secondary outlets (both reliable and unreliable) started covering Soompi's awards as kpop+hallyu visibility increased over the years. The site's content had been cited by various outlets long before that. Reliability is not inherent. Rel sources like BB, Forbes etc. citing unrel ones (Soompi, Akp, KBoo) does not suddenly make the unrel source reliable. This is why for eg. when YouTube 24-hr views are being updated we do not allow the use of any articles from rel sources like Forbes or BB that cite unofficial realtime view counts taken from twitter (unrel) or stated by some other third-party like Soompi (unrel). Idk how much plainer to explain it than that wo sounding increasingly repetitive. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Soompi is notable but it's not reliable. If other reliable sources publish reports on Soompi, it doesn't make Soompi itself reliable. Please just read the guideline on reliable sources (see WP:UGC in particular) which would tell you how to determine if a source is reliable or not. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)