Talk:BTS

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 (article contribs).

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)

@Newzild: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)

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)

@HondaGang: 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)

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?

 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. ‑‑ElHef (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[1] (Not even top 20[2]). 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)

@ErnestKrause: 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, @Ss112 and Sergecross73: 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)

@ErnestKrause: 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??? @Lirim.Z: and @Carlobunnie: 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)

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)

@PurpleIsTheBestColour: 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 1920×1080 or higher resolution, the current image is 1920×1080) 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)

References

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)

 Not done: Please elaborate on the changes you would like to make and include a source.--Lirim | Talk 08:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 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. Melmann 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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 25 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)

Oppose The information is critical and I don't see any issues with this. Removing it means censoring which Wikipedia is not about. In addition, I agreed with what BawinV mentioned. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Paper9oll, 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)

@52-whalien Economic. The current paragraph has been cut short by the OP however the Billboard article states much more. Either expand the paragraph or move it into other section, outright removing it would imo be censoring. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:15, 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 see how fans mass buying music is comparable to things like the group's economic effect on South Korea."

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)

BawinV 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)

BawinV, 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)

Ïvana 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)