Jump to content

Talk:BigBang (South Korean band)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Things to do

Now that the article's up for a GA review (cheers AhnSoonKyung), It'd be best to improve the article in more areas before it actually gets reviewed (which could be months away). I've decided to dash in a to do list. Also, song titles should be in romanised format- so "Let Me Hear your Voice" should be "Koe o Kikasete". I've been romanising the titles, but they seem to be reverted back to their translated format. + ThermoNuclear ☢ 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know it's far from a GA article, but since it's up for nomination now, we have more incentive to work on it. =] AhnSoonKyung (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protect

There's been quite a lot of vandalism/fangirlism lately on this page. Should we protect it, as it is a GA nominee? AhnSoonKyung (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's been much recent fanspasms. I'll say, wait it out, if the volume of vandalism edits increase then it'd be best to request protection. + TNW 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an extra watch on this page though, just in case.  :) AhnSoonKyung (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Replaced the reference of Big Bang song/album with Big Bang (disambiguation) at the header section, as the information has been(and should be) documented in the section of Big Bang (disambiguation). Clari 2010 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is on on the disambiguation, thus we do not need to put it there. Instead, we should put its single and album of the same name on there. Please do not move paragraphs around the article without consorting it first. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Adding references of Big Bang song/album at header section is to have an effect of semi-disambiguation which only re-iterates some information that has been documented in the Big Bang (disambiguation) already. The header section should list the disambiguation if there is one directly related to this article, instead of going into details of part of disambiguation. Please do look around, and you will notice this is actually a wiki standard. Clari 2010 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason why the actual Big Bang page as the dis. on it is because there are also other pages with its name in it too. However, as this Big Bang is already written with the (group) in its name, it does not need it. Other pages like Taylor Swift does the same. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In the case of Taylor Swift, there's no disambiguation page for the article name Taylor Swift, so the reference makes sense there. But in the case of Big Bang, there is a disambiguation page already which does include the references of song/album titled Big Bang. Please refer to the articles of The Beatles, Kara(band) for example, which suites this case much better. Clari 2010 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No. If the band Big Bang was on the article name Big Bang, then in only that case we would need a hatnote at the top linking to Big Bang (disambiguation). But that's not where this article is. This article is on Big Bang (band), so we don't need a link to Big Bang (disambiguation). Articles only have these hatnotes on them because, for example, if someone types in "obama" in the search box, they might be looking for the city or the holiday. But here, most people would that are looking for the band would type in "big bang" in the search box, see the Big Bang (disambiguation) on the top of Big Bang and from there go here. No one in their right mind would type in "Big Bang (band)" while searching for the theory or the TV show. So that's why we don't need it. As for the band's single and album, that's why we had the original direct hatnote link from here to the single article and album article. People going here looking for the single or album shouldn't have to go to Big Bang (disambiguation), where there are hordes of other songs and albums titled "Big Bang". Virtually no one coming from the article Big Bang (band) would be looking for the album titled Big Bang by, say, Los Enanitos Verdes. Colloquially, no one coming from this article would be looking for the song "Big Bang" by Bad Religion. Sorafune +1 01:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I second Sorafune. Cherrieslovable (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Added section Awards and recognition

Added section Awards and recognition for Big Bang's numerous awards in Asia, which seems not very appropriate for section See also. To do: it probably should have a summary paragraph. Clari 2010 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC) And removed the section see also - as it only contains duplicate information of new section Awards and recognition.

About GA recommendation of a summary paragraph, though it should be a good to have, I don't see it a must for a section of Awards. For example, the article of Coldplay, does exactly the same at their awards section, which is apparently justifiable for a band that is still active. But having a paragraph counting the number of awards being listed or listing some of the awards might be helpful. Wonder why wiki editors are not paid. Clari 2010 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to have an award section as most of the major awards are mention directly in the history section already.75.72.105.60 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Though some of the awards have been mentioned here or there, it still makes a lot of sense to have a separate award section. It is a good practice to have an award section which would also be a meaningful index, the see also section doesn't fit this purpose. Clari 2010 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that the award section does have its own page, thus it does not need the section.AhnSoonKyung (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Having a stand alone article of awards is not sufficient reason to not to have an award section. Instead, to persist on putting in section See also is actually not common practice. Therefore, an award section is good, and I am adding it back in. Clari 2010 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add it back until you've reached a consensus first with the other editors. This isn't your article. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a reverting war here, slease do not keep reverting each other's edit (in fact, don't even EDIT the article) until a solution has come up first. Thank you. Cherrieslovable (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues being dealt with here: 1) Should there be an award section or not? and 2) Should we use the name Big Bang when mention their self-titled Japanese album. What do you think? AhnSoonKyung (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I actually think the article looks fine the way it is, without an award section or the name being mention (since the description of it is sufficient enough). AhnSoonKyung and ThermoNuclearWar fixed it up enough and I think it looks well-written. Yes, being GA status does not mean it's perfect and we can't change it, but this is just my opinion. In short, I second AhnSoonKyung. Cherrieslovable (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with an awards section, though some said it's ok to not to have it. Here are some good about having an award section: 1. explicit - you know what to expect in that section. See also is too general 2. for index purpose - for bands, awards should be a point of interest that reader might might want to be able to jump to that part from the beginning. Cons: is somebody OK with not having it making a con ? what's going on here? Clari 2010 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As this is a free-edit for everyone, it is best to come to a consensus. I agree with AhnSoonKyung and Cherrieslovable to just keep the edit the same as it is. 75.72.105.60 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Besides the arguments of that this is a free-edit, and best to come to a consensus, what else is the reason for sticking with not having an award section? Clari 2010 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. It's unnecessary, particularly because it already has its own page
  2. Most of the major awards are already mention in the history and it would seem repetitive to mention them again
  3. And this isn't a place to brag about how many awards Big Bang has won so it really doesn't matter if we have it down or not.
As long as there is a link to the page, there's no need to put it down and have a paragraph on there. Having a section on the award is nice, but seeing how Big Bang has only won two major awards - the two Artist of the Year award - it's not enough for them to have a section be written on it, especially when they already have the page. Cherrieslovable (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose to add an award section and to have a neutral "as a matter of fact" attitude

Isn't that alarming that someone said that having an award section equal to "brag about how many awards Big Bang has won"? Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your good work, for keeping an eye on this article. But can we have a "as a matter of fact" attitude and approach here? Frankly the overall tone and my first impression of the article seems to be about, how Big Bang fit in Japan market. I thought it is a little too awkwardly obvious here. And hoped, that maybe we can make it a little more neutral, at least some come to here to view information about big bang won't laugh out too laud about the too obvious tone of the article. But having to so strongly sticking with judgmental treatment of a simple typical section of award isn't a way to welcoming a new editor trying to contribute, is it, unless here we have a gang?

regarding some of the comments from Cherrieslovable: 1. It's unnecessary, particularly because it already has its own page It is necessary and common/good practice. 2. Most of the major awards are already mention in the history and it would seem repetitive to mention them again This doesn't mean we do not need a separate section for awards 3. And this isn't a place to brag about how many awards Big Bang has won so it really doesn't matter if we have it down or not. This is a place to be neutral and faithful about documenting Big Bang.

Therefore, I hope editors agree with me that An award section is needed.

Clari 2010 (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

With an awards section, what exactly do you aim to achieve? A section with a main article link does not follow WP:MOS rules. Its not a matter of Big bang being properly documented, nor is it a matter of neutrality. Articles should follow the manual of style, in this article's GA position, it must. I'm sorry if you felt singled out, since that's not what is supposed to happen here. You can indeed fix other matters, but this awards section is unnecessary. + TNW 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Most articles that have an empty awards section with one link are that way because editors were too lazy to write something in the section. We can't have an empty award section because that would be well, lazy, and would be under GA standards (or general standards, for that matter). We could have an award section, but we'd need content in it. Some articles, like The Beatles (a featured article), have an awards section, but they also talk about the main awards in the section. If we have some good content in an awards section here, I think it would be fine. Sorafune +1 01:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't seem to be a good practice - although some argued it's ok. (By the way, I do agree this is a good article overall. good job! But that's why this link looks strange in a good article like this.) When mentioning "self-titled full-length Japanese album", the link of Big Bang (Big Bang album) does need to have the album being mentioned also. Why there's so strong objection for a correction like this, it's mystery to me... Clari 2010 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a practice that's done because it seems rather unnecessary to repeat that their album is call "Big Bang" when we can just put down self-titled debut album . Since you like to use Taylor Swift as an example, I suggest you look at her article. It clearly states that Her self-titled debut album was later released on October 24, 2006. Cherrieslovable (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2010
Their self-titled full-length Japanese album vs their self-titled full-length Japanese album Big Bang (Big Bang album) Is the usage at one another article good enough reason for that? This is becoming an edit war already here. I disagree with the usage. Clari 2010 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So apparently it doesn't work in this case but it works when you're using it for your disambiguation case? And regardless, you didn't even link it correctly. It is a practice that can be seen in most articles with bands, which is why it was used here. And if it can pass GA with it, I don't see why it can't be kept. The other editors seems to think so or otherwise, they wouldn't be editing/reverting it so much. Cherrieslovable (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with the usage "Their self-titled full-length Japanese album..." It's completely normal in English and is used numerous times. In truth, the wording is not such a big deal, but trying to change it in the face of overwhelming objection isn't such a great idea. Sorafune +1 02:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How about this new update: their self-titled full-length Japanese album Big Bang? It's said in the GA review, that there are still improvements to do, a more neutral tone for example. Also some mentioned even "awkward phrasing, stylistic problems, or usage errors in every section", Though I tend to agree this is a good article in general, I did notice above issues as well. Trying to do some updates here, frankly I didn't expect this will incur so much debates and undo/reverting (though this certainly made me respect each article at wiki more, thinking how much effort/time editors have put into each line of documentation. But I hope the debates here are worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clari 2010 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The GA was done a while back already, with another editor doing the copy-right. If you're going to suggest, then please do not to edit without the others giving their opinions first. Currently, the editors are agreeing to keep it the way it is, so there's no need to change it. Cherrieslovable (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Any controversy material on recent plagiarism by G-Dragon?

It seems to me that this article is indeed, quoting AhnSooKyung "fangirlistic". It only shows the bright, fabulous side of BigBang whereas the darker truth concerning the controversy on G-Dragon's plagiarism of Flo Rida's Right Round seems to be completely neglected. G-Dragon has also been debated for his shirts and badges with "offensive" slogans, as some may remember. Please add this section to the article and make it less biased. Jjeong12 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the issue with G-Dragon and Flo Rida does not have anything to do with Big Bang's songs it belongs in his article, and can actually be founded there. Same thing with his wardrobe, it has nothing to do with the group only him. A controversy could/can be added but only if it has something to do with the group as a whole or a few of the members, and not just one member. 夢 追人 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Those issues surround G-Dragon and his person music releases, not Big Bang. Omitting the controversy from this article does not make it "fangirlistic" at all. Something fangirlistic would be like adding each member's favorite fruit to the member list or talking about how their music is so amazing and heart stopping.  mx3 (Sorafune) 話 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pages moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang (band) → Big Bang (Korean band) — I've been going back and forth regarding these renames, and decided to just go for the requested move. I'm proposing that Big Bang (band) be moved to Big Bang (Korean band) and Bigbang (band) be moved to Bigbang (Norwegian band) due to the fact that both bands use inconsistent stylization, which results in both bands being referred to as Big Bang, Bigbang, BigBang or BIGBANG. The fact that Allmusic lists the Norwegian band as Big Bang as opposed to Bigbang doesn't help matters, but only adds to the utter confusion between the names of these bands. The best direction is to simply further disambiguate both article titles further. — ξxplicit 04:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

False/Errant/Inaccurate citations

I spent 5 minutes verifying sources for the "Dance Style" section (sources 64-66).

Source #64 mentions nothing of one, Lyle Beniga. Source #65 is a nonexistent page. Source #66 mentions nothing of abdomen exposure gaining popularity or it becoming a highly searched topic.

There is no mention of Seungri or Taeyang choreographing anything in any of the articles cited. There is no mention of street dances. And "Their dance moves have been widely copied and covered" by who?

This is completely irresponsible writing. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to be an online "encyclopedia" rather than some tabloid/fangirl article? It seems that the intentions of the writer of this section was to be intentionally misleading as well as complete disregard for objective writing.211.179.47.182 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right on #64; I reorganized to reflect the same. Source #65 I corrected the link for. Source #66 DOES state that their flashing of abs became a hot topic, but I removed the parts re: copying and the song "La La La" because those weren't mentioned in the article. The issue with having anyone edit Wikipedia is people can write whatever they want. On the same token, people can also delete whatever they want. SKS (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: Lyle Beniga tweeted that he was working with Big Bang, so it's not exactly a fasl statement. But Twitter isn't exactly a reliable source.... SKS (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

YG United

I just recently found out about this site (I know, I'm slow -.-') YG United. Would you consider it a reliable source? AhnSoonKyung (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jang HyunSeung

The show was also aired online on GomTV and on MTV Korea.[2] Initially a six-member group, one member got eliminated during the airing of the show before the official debut[3] leading to their current line-up.

Jang was going to be the sixth member, isn't that important to have that? Also you could mention that he's now in BEAST/B2ST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.175.123 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:BIGBANG korean band.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BIGBANG korean band.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Big Bang (Korean band).

TOP and G Dragon has copyrighted pictures on their articles. Somebody should cropped one of the CF pictures for each member. That will help contributors from uploading copyrighted images continuously. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 18:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 CF.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 CF.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alive World Tour

I think that it is highly necessary that we create a page specifically to highlight the tour dates and details of their Alive World Tour, anyone mind to help?

Article title move by A1candidate

I disagree with the move of the article title by User:A1candidate to the stylized form BIGBANG. All previous moves have followed Wikipedia:MOSTM and formal rules of English writing. Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one. This will set a precedent that the stylization should be used throughout this article and all related articles like Big Bang (Big Bang album), The Best of Big Bang, etc Evaders99 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSTM is a rigid rule that should not apply to bands and musicians, see the discussion at will.i.am's article. Wikipedia lists the South Korean K-pop group Big Bang with small letters according to the no "unnecessary capitalization" rule. But the band's stage name is "BIGBANG" and many other respectable sources including Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Billboard, Metro News, Vancouver Observer, etc , have used "BIGBANG" instead of "Big Bang" -A1candidate (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Endorsements Section

I noticed that the endorsements section contained information that has no sources. I have done a few searches but haven't been able to find any reputable sources in English that Big Bang's asking price is $1 Million USD, or that GD and TOP are the highest paid idols at 900,000 USD. Can anyone verify this? Madaboutmaddy (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archiving BIGBANG

This took me quite a while, due to the article names being so different prior to name switching (to South Korean band). I hope I didn't screw up too much, if I did please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! =TIMMYC= (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about the page

I remember clearly that this group started off on a reality idol trainee survival program. I was wondering if the lack of filmography was conscious choice by consensus or simply overlooked? I don't want to build one I'm just curious because I am mostly unaware if this group had any group tv programs.Peachywink (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Article guidelines for discography section

Convention on Wikipedia is to include a list of the artist's studio albums in the discography section. That's how this section was when the article became a WP:GA. See the article guidelines at WP:WPMAG. These guidelines were developed through consensus years ago and can't be changed by edit warring in edit summaries. Beahye, if you want to discuss this further, do it here, not in edit summaries. I am reverting your edits here (and on G-Dragon) because they are disruptive. Random86 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Random86 I read them all. WP:WPMAG is said that the discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. And they add 'In most cases' to the follow sentence. I mean that says 'In most cases' and 'musician's major work' . You know Bigbang's special edition albums even become the musician's major works? I mean the guideline which is you are referring is up to interpretation.
@Beahye: The guideline states "In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums". If the "major works" is up to interpretation, that requires discussion and consensus. Your edits are disruptive because you are going against the general guidelines without consensus. Removing the studio albums doesn't make any sense because then the section is empty, and the section isn't supposed to be empty. Please revert your last edit to the page. Also, you are still ignoring the fact that this article was approved as a "good article", and the section contained a list of studio albums at that time. What makes you think you can come along years later and say "studio albums info don't need to be here"? Random86 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Random86 No WP:WPMAG just gives people an example not to need discussion and consensus. Ok you said general guidelines. And I read that on WP:WPMAG too. Can we talk about 'general '?
[WP:WPMAG]] is also said EPs, singles, etc. should 'generally' not be included. They says 'generally' which is not to need must do. So, I will include their some works which are special edition albums on that page at least. And the info of special edition albums are on the the EP pages. So I will bring them on a main article of Bigbang. If you want to say that is an EP page and create new page of special edition albums, then I will say that is a just 'generally'. EP page has a detailed information of special edition album, and special edition album is not an EP the guideline 'generally' suggested. Even if that is an EP.. they said 'generally'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beahye (talk • contribs)
@Beahye: First off, please remember to indent your replies and sign your posts. You are still going about this the wrong way. You should discuss your changes before you make them because there is a known disagreement. That's why your edits are still disruptive. If you want to argue that the special EPs are major works or the same are studio albums, make your argument. But your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments aren't helping your case. Random86 (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

official TITLE

The official title is BIGBANG, not Big Bang. Would there be a way to make BIGBANG the Wikipedia search result and have Big Bang (South Korean band) redirect to BIGBANG? Ygent ebiz (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The English Wikipedia uses the closest sources that resembles standard English - it does not consider trademarks. See WP:MOSTM if you have further questions Evaders99 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Then that is a cruddy policy because "big bang" and "Bigbang" are two distinctly different things in different categories with completely different meanings. 71.35.103.206 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Seungri

I'm working on editing Seungri's page and add some resources. Any one has any ideas or suggestion? --User:WRWRachel —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • WRWRachel I see that there is not much about the specific members of the bands. I would like to hear more about the members themselves and how the band came together. --Rvara14 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WRWRachel We are both doing Wikipedia page for Asian music stars. I recommend you can go to some Asian Drama websites to look for more information.Thisislily (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

seungri did not leave the group Genrietta3003 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

thank. change the beginning of the article, where it says that there are 4 participants in the group (there are 5) Genrietta3003 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Although seungri left the group many of his fans are not agreeing and want to wait until leader gdragon comes out of military. Suengri is proven not guilty and millions of people are talking about Wikipedia page kindly refer about uncertainty about his leaving group Deekshasohani (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

AWARDS

Hey yo. I am just an ordinary VIP but I would love to see the awards won by the group throughout their career. And I hope you will do this by chart because I noticed that there's too much of paragraph in this page. It's like reading a novel so I hope you guys summarize and organize it properly. Thank you. LeeXXIV (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigbang actually has 5 videos that surpass 100m . Lets not fall in love , the article said 4 . If you include Bigbang solo activities it is 7 videos in total. Good boy by Taeyang and Gd . Crooked by Gd. Bigbang had the most videos that surpass 100 million views on YouTube. I hope the article is corrected and more organised. Obiorah precious (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

PICTURE!!!

Please kindly update. LeeXXIV (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Top photo

Could someone replace the top photo to something more recent and one where the members aren't doing silly faces. --EnderAtreides117 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fandom section error

In the fandom section of the page it lists Song Hye-kyo twice.

--Suesie69 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

In the lead section, there is a sentence:

  • "Since the Gaon Chart began tracking sales, Big Bang—including members' solo releases—has sold over 92 million records, and with the previous releases including the sales from Music Industry Association of Korea (MIAK) and The Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA) they have sold over 115 million records, with over 108 million digital singles, selling an average of 4.3 million downloads per title track and 1.5 million downloads per non-title track, and over 6.7 million albums in Korea, Japan, and the rest of Asian continent, making them the best-selling digital group of all-time in Asia."

and this is sourced by a photobucket screenshot of some excel table made by user (fan) on onehallyu.com forum (link)..seriously? And for "Japan sales" the screenshot is so tiny that you cant even read the data (link) ... even if the data are 100% correct, this should NEVER be used in a "good" article, especially in the lead section 86.58.36.145 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

Please change the sources for the 140 million records to 13 million physical copies. The articles from Variety, straight.com and the georgia straight provide no source on how the number 140 million originated. Said number originates from a forum named OneHallyu where fans speculated said band's sales, including solo albums and digital sales, and charts that included other charts making it an unreliable number. Plus BIG BANG has only sold 13 million physical copies and isn't even on the best selling korean albums list. 186.107.126.54 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Agree that those sources are not reliable, they took the numbers from this article on Wikipedia, and not the otherwise like it is supposed to be. In the old revision from April 2017, none of the provided sources confirms anything about 140 million, and all those articles from Variety, Deadline.com and Straight,com, which are now used as sources, are form late April-June 2017, therefore they look at this article since it is the first result on Google and simply copied information they found here. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Those Numbers are CERTIFIED by : RIAK 

recording industry association of korea

KMCIA 

Korea Music Content Industry Association

The fan Counted the numbers from GAON : 

The Gaon Music Chart tabulates the relative weekly popularity of songs or albums in South Korea. It is compiled by the Korea Music Content Industry Association and sponsored by South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, with an aim to create a national chart for South Korea similar to the Billboard charts of the United States

So 140 Million are 100% Valid.

MRAU-vip EXTENDED 17:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the source then? If the number originates from the fan forum (as you even confirmed yourself) it should not be added to the article, unless you find a direct, reliable source where it says how much have they sold, not this manual fan calculating from week to week. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

those numbers originates from GAON + ididn't confirmed anything about that 'Fan' but i know that calculation from them i did not say what you claimed,the Source is GAON and here is the source for those numbers, so guess what its not from that fan/forum its from → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_discography You can count their sales yourself, The biggest problem its you guys, because i give your trusted sources, 'the fan' used GAON as source to their number, if you don't trust any fan calculation you can go ahead and count them yourself, if you can't do that, don't downgrade group achievments and saying that they can't sell those numbers.

comment added by MRAU-vip — Preceding (talk contribs) 02:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well sorry, but this is not a fan page to boast their achievements, you still didnt provide a source. And NO, another Wikipedia article (see WP:CIRC) or some fan user on OneHallyu forum are not a sources of any kind. Find a source from reliable Korean sites (Naver, OSEN etc.), or English sources like Yonhap, Korea Herald etc. Manual calculation of weekly sales through all those years is clearly WP:OR and will not be included here, even if the info is in fact 100% correct, unless a reliable source is provided of course. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Here a Reliable Source YAHOO! and Yes BIGBANG SOLD 13 million physical copies and The rest of sales are DIGITAL People are counting digital sales now - very few people are buying physical these days. New cars are coming without CD players, I've bought one or two CDs in the last few years - and I was massive on "physical only", even my grand-mother who is beyond technologically illiterate is moving to digital.

People who still say that digital sales don't count are being ridiculous (I used to be one of those people actually), the format has changed.


comment added by MRAU-vip — Preceding (talk contribs) 11:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This issue has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with trying to discredit any group's achievements. It may be true that they have sold 140 million records, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, reliable sources must contain NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The OneHallyu forum is an example of 'original research' that cannot be cited by an article as per WP:OR. I'd encourage you to remove your fan-tinted glasses and take a step back to view this issue objectively - the Yahoo article is unreliable as the figure was obviously copied from somewhere else (being the OneHallyu forum that eventually moved its way here), the title isn't even about the band but 'S. Korean rapper T.O.P gets suspended sentence for drug use'. Alexataylor07 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

do you understand english or not ? sorry but i suggest you to use medical glasses, stop talk about things that you don't know, i have a sources to very-well Trusted data of sales i will not keep saying the same things, FIRST : i didn't get data of sales from a forum or original research , i get data from GAON, MIAK(RIAK now), Hanteo, KMCIA, ORICON, QQ, RIAJ, Billboard, Kugou, Kuwo...

NOTICE : DO YOU RESEARCH CORRECTLY AND THEN COME AND GIVE ME RECIEPT, wow its very crazy when i have well-trusted data (not a forum/original research) and you guys still saying the same things. Let's get up

Reply: Gaon gives you sales data for an individual digital single or physical album, same with QQ, Billboard, Kugou, Kuwo, Hanteo, etc. None of these charts give out certifications except for the RIAJ in Japan (and Nielson Music in US but Big Bang's sales there hardly qualifies). Usually an artist's total sales can be calculated concretely by adding their album and single certifications. However adding the sales from singles and albums up year to year yourself (without a certifying body) is considered original research. Okay, suppose I agree with you and added up all the sales (singles, albums, DVDs, you name it) off Big Bang's discography, which is sourced from all the charts you mentioned above, totals to only 90~ million records (I dare you to count too since I did). Now that's a large disparity with the 140 million number, can you see why I'm dubious? Being arrogant with your remarks will not change my mind. Alexataylor07 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

we don't talk about CERTIFIED SALES only, there is different between CLAIMED sales and CERTIFIED sales, BIGBANG have 140M in Claimed sales + 90M in Certified Sales, do you understand it or not ? + GAON are supported by RIAK wich means all sales from Gaon are certified 

PS : RIAK = Recording Industry Association of Korea, RIAJ = Recording Industry Association of Japan

MRAU-vip • 20:48, 01 Octobre 2017 (UTC)

Still no sources other than unsigned Yahoo News article, which just randomly mentioned the numbers in one sentence which they found in this article, while writting the news report about one of their member? You said that your data is not original research, yet you mentioned that YOU get that data from GAON, MIAK, Hanteo, KMCIA etc... , meaning you basically calculated everything manually, from week to week, from all those sites, this is EXACTLY what original research is. Search Korean news for sources, there must be a source for sales, and Korean journalists are not that ignorant to copy information from English Wikipedia like that copy/pasting part-time "journalist" at Yahoo, so the Korean soruces would be way more reliable. By the way, you dont need to copy information from Big Bang discography since this page is one huge original research as well, see talk page. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


Since there seems to be a consensus that the 150 million records sales is unsupported, why is it still being listed on their page? Why not remove it until someone provides a reliable source for both claimed and unclaimed sales? Also, it would be great to get some clarification on what that figure is supposed to actually represent. Is it singles, albums, DVDs or all of the above? The current links that are provided as proof are generally snippets from Western publications who sadly probably copied the figure from Wikipedia as opposed to checking the other sources. Also, as someone already pointed out it's odd that Big Bang's sales would be so high and surpass other boybands yet their sales are not referenced on the list of the highest earning boybands <ref><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_band#Best-selling_boy_bands> and other similar lists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C600:4D50:319F:8074:729A:7164 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

edit idea

I want to try entering this section between Accolades and discography, as it will become more necessary as the members start their military service.:

  • Oppose: I don't see how this is necessary for Big Bang, they very rarely (exception being this year's dome tour) do group promotions in the absence of any member, unlike bigger groups such as Super Junior and such who can comeback without several members present. Alexataylor07 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Members

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for FA?

I’ve been thinking: this is definitely one of the better written articles for a K-pop group, & it does contain detailed information about them (legacy, artistry, awards, etc). Back then, it was approved for GA status & it has definitely grown since due to the amazing contributions from other editors. Should we nominate this for FA & see what improvements can be done still? I’ve never nominate an article before & wouldn’t know where to start so I would love to open this up for discussion. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

change Big Bang (South Korean band)to BIGBANG (South Korean band) because the official band name stated by YGFAMILY is 빅뱅 in Korean, BIGBANG in English. Many foreigners are using Big Bang but this is incorrect. Hkaren1002 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners. WP:MOSTM - no one wants to read BIGBANG all throughout the whole article. Evaders99 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pre-FAC thoughts

I came across this article because a mentor for a potential FAC nomination was looked for. I am not familiar with the topic, so am probably not the best possible mentor, but can offer some thoughts before.

  • I see 6 refs for one fact in the lead. That is at least 3 too many, and probably 6 too many, because once information is sourced in the lead, the ref doesn't have to appear in the lead (unless it's a quotation).
  • I see a lot of Korean in the lead, translations of linked titles, and wonder if they might be skipped, because we not reading Korean are held up, and those who do can be sure to find it in the linked article.
  • I formatted the images, away from fixed sizes. If you want them slightly larger, use: upright=1.1 (or 1.2).
  • It's nice to offer for every image an alternative text, alt=, not a repeat of the caption but a description of what it shows for a person who can't see it, such as a blind reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this page locked?

It says to prevent vandalism but there is some info that need to be added. Can I ask what is wiki email so I can run this with them? Nayra0506 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nayra0506: No email should be made. If you wanted to request an edit for a protected article, please leave a request here. For more info, please refer to WP:EDITREQUEST. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

Could someone enlarge the pictures on the article? All the images after the first seem a bit too small, especially as they are mostly wide angle shots of the group so their individual faces are unclear. 123.243.197.142 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:BTS (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Status of Seungri

Seungri hasn't recently retired from the industry as a whole. Does this mean a departure from Big Bang considering Wondergirls's Sunye left in the same way?-K-popguardian (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

SEUNGRI NEVER SAID HE IS LEAVING BIGBANG, HE IS NOT A PAST MEMBER. Julia Kolpakova (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ​ — Newslinger talk 12:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

SeungRi

SeungRi's label - YG Entertainment - never said that member will leave band. You dismissed person from band just bc of his emotional post in Instagram while he having problems in live. It's not proven information, please remove him from "past members", he is still active member of BIGBANG. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Kolpakova (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Seungri is still in the Bigbang group Genrietta3003 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the error in the article. Genrietta3003 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

SeungRi

SeungRi's label - YG Entertainment - never said that member will leave band. You dismissed person from band just bc of his emotional post in Instagram while he having problems in live. It's not proven information, please remove him from "past members", he is still active member of BIGBANG. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Kolpakova (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Seungri is still in the Bigbang group Genrietta3003 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the error in the article. Genrietta3003 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.214.232 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Lazysince87 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 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. — Newslinger talk 12:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles linked don't have valid source

For the statement that BIGBANG has sold over 140M, it was linked to several articles. However, those articles don't have valid source (such as actual website that tracks/announce sales, etc). PepperinoPepsi (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting observation. If those sales are legit then the sales should be officially certified by official music charts & organizations. But, we don't see any official music certifications in the archives.

Their huge sales are not even mentioned in the IFPI records which calculate all global sales. 140 million records sold and no mention from the main IFPI organization? Even the other Wiki pages which have full archives of the best selling records don't accept this figure.

I think for the sake of the validity and integrity of facts, this 140 million figure has to be removed.

Facts Spiller (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think the information should be removed, but it should be added that their sales of 140 million is an estimate. That's because it's so difficult to get certified in Asia, only Japan that has been providing this type of record for decades, but started its process of compiling digital album sales recently. South Korea started its certification process just last year. Nevertheless, particularly, I don't think that sales of the 140 million group have to be discredited because the sources used in the article use information about the group's sales estimate worldwide. Michael Jackson's sales, though estimated, are present in his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.19.164.94 (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Group Photo

The group photo needs to be updated as it still includes the ex-member. Dbee8188 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see problems here, there aren't recent images with four members, so the main image of the article doesn't need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.19.164.94 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Must it be an official photo?? There are several edits floating around. Dbee8188 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Line about bubblegum

"While K-pop is notorious for producing highly manufactured bubblegum groups, Big Bang have been praised for their individuality and ability to fuse a pop sound with rap, R&B and dance elements"

The first clause, or maybe all, of this sentence should go. These lines are either verbatim or nearly verbatim from the source (an issue on its own, if I remember Wiki rules correctly), but it's not good information.

1. Big Bang is just as manufactured as any other K-pop group, as far as I can tell

2. Bubblegum is by far not the only or even the dominant genre in K-pop (based on brand rankings / Spotify data from last year). Rap and dance elements are ubiquitous. R&B is common among a lot of popular groups right now (Red Velvet, Mamamoo, and BTOB immediately come to mind, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about K-pop could list more groups). K-pop has all kinds of different sounds.

3. The source makes generalizations without expounding any further (it doesn't say from whom Big Bang gets its praise, it claims K-pop is "notorious" for highly manufactured bubblegum groups but doesn't really back that at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjbennington (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and make this edit, if someone has an issue with it we can talk through it here. Sjbennington (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Yuiharui (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


Can you please chage Big Bang to BIGBANG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuiharui (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yuiharui:  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Big Bang (band). Appears to meet the Nirvana (band) standard. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Big Bang (South Korean band) → Big Bang (boy band) – No other musical artists going by this name are boy bands. Being the only boy band going by this name, I don't think it needs to mention they are a Korean band in its name. ❂stringDTD❂ 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPDATE MAIN PHOTO

Please update the main picture of BIGBANG as this one hardly shows any of them clearly Jamiejunes (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They haven't even taken an official picture as 4.A high-quality cropped image would be nice. Xxmadaraaxx (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Main picture

Guys please change the main picture... You can hardly see any of them clearly... A better one should be used Jamiejunes (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged number of sales

Looking at the article's history the section mentioning sales was removed on many occasions, resurfacing with different sources, and none of them reliable. At one point it was claimed that the total included the members solo releases and sub-units, which doesn't make sense. This version precedes the articles cited as sources now, so they most likely reference wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR). Another revision mentioned 100 million records (again, including solo releases) citing a forum as a source (see WP:OR), which is probably where everything started. The claimed sales don't match the group's verifiable sales at all, and I couldn't find anything supporting that number. I'm aware that this has been discussed multiple times here, so if there's a consensus that the 140/150/etc million record sales is unsupported, why is it still on the article? - Ïvana (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Big Bang (South Korean band). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1:43 (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Change group photo to the 4-member group photo provided by BIGBANG's agency, YG Entertainment, on the artist and news pages of their official website. The photo being used on Wikipedia is severely outdated and is not an accurate portrayal of the group. BIGBANG has had a new 4-member group photo to represent them in an official capacity in all news releases since January 2020. Please correct this oversight as soon as possible.

Sources:

https://www.ygfamily.com/artist/About.asp?LANGDIV=E&ATYPE=2&ARTIDX=3

https://yg-life.com/archives/152471?lang=en 96.8.253.27 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see Wikipedia:Files for upload Make a request to have the image uploaded first. Once uploaded re-activate this request. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: We cannot use copyrighted images. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to support the process, oh well. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request


  • What I think should be changed: Remove: “It has been claimed that they have sold over 150 million records globally, which would rank them among the best-selling boy bands in the world.[15][16][17][18][19]”
  • Why it should be changed: It is untrue. Big Bang has not sold over 150 million records, but has around 150 million downloaded individual songs (not even converted to record sales). Saying Big Bang has sold over 150 million records and that they are possibly the best-selling boyband in the world misleads the public, as it is not true.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Point 8 made in this article: https://www.allkpop.com/article/2019/06/netizens-expose-ygs-media-play-history

This blog tracking Big Bang’s sales and downloads: https://bigbangisforever.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/bbs-total-korean-and-japanese-music-sales-updated-weekly/

Dandelionjb (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It has been reported by many notable media outlets, so in my opinion it at least warrants a mention. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1:43 (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Big Bang's group picture in their article's infobox should reflect current lineup, which consists of Daesung, T.O.P, G-Dragon, and Taeyang. Other musical groups with former members such as EXO and Super Junior follow this in their articles' infoboxes. Article previously featured image of the four active members in the infobox, but a user edited it back. Please change infobox image of Big Bang's old lineup to Big Bang's current lineup for accuracy. 141.126.224.165 (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide an image with an acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022 (2)

this part: While the group members have established themselves as fashion icons,[322] however, they have been criticized for appropriating hip-hop culture in their choice of clothes, color coordination, and hairstyles.[323][324] Should be removed. An anti recently added this. People should add this to multiple kpop groups not just them, but they did not. Please remove this part. 2600:1700:2300:3EC0:78E5:DA88:FEB1:92C8 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, citations [323] and [324] do not sufficiently support claim; [323] is a singular guest post on a blog (as opposed to a reputable news source), and [324] does not actually reference ‘appropriating hip-hop culture’—it only mentions that former member Seungri wore a Native American headdress in a music video, which is not pertinent to what the edit says. Nazsleep (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Big Bang (band) → Big Bang (group) – WP:BANDDAB, no members play instruments and all other big bang musical acts are bands Tai123.123 (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Per WP:PCM, this will need a discussion due to several previous RM discussions in the talk page archives. A move is potentially controversial if [...] there has been any past debate about the best title for the page. DanCherek (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. (group) is preferred per WP:BANDDAB, and this also gets rid of the current WP:PDAB with Big Bang (British band). 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All the bands called Big Bang are also groups as in real life the two words are entirely synonymous. Neither the current title nor the proposed title provides any form of disambiguation. They are a "boy band"; it says so in the first line of the article. Support Big Bang (South Korean band). See Category:South Korean boy bands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bigbang is a band. Taeyang has plated piano/keyboards all his life. He plays keyboard during concerts..Daesung plays drums. Also during concerts. GDragon alsonplays piano and TOP plays harmonica. This can allb3 easily checked. Mezz71 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
If that's the case, then Big Bang (South Korean band) would be more appropriate, per WP:PDAB. Note that a 2020 RM that resulted in the current title found consensus to disregard the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The 2020 RM certainly did not disregard the guideline. It was in complete accord with WP:INCDAB (PDAB is not the guideline itself), which the closer indirectly pointed out. This band or group is still getting well over 20x the pageviews of the British band. Oppose adding South Korean back into the title, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Station1 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

Change the "Seungri got kicked out from the entertainment industry" to "Seungri retired from entertainment industry" Jesslee12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

. Jesslee12 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done [1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Someone really edited the picture just to remove seungri JealousSpouse (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

He is retired from the group according to the article, the lead image was updated to reflect this. Sissyonus (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BigBang_(South_Korean_band)/Archive_2&oldid=1250725268"