Jump to content

User talk:Carlobunnie/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Happy New Year

Carlobunnie,
Thanks for your contributions to improving and organizing all articles relating to Korean pop culture. Have a Happy New Year! ~~~~
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

2011 melon music awards

Hi, I noticed in one of your edit summaries on "I Am the Best" that you removed the citation for the 2011 Melon Music Award nominations and intended to find a better replacement. Have you come across any sources so far? Personally, after a while of searching on Nate and Naver I couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned the nominees. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nkon21: I did a pretty detailed search on Naver using a variety of search terms and didn't find anything. Mma website archives for that year on wayback didn't turn up anything either. Depending on how the nominees for SOTY were announced during the show that year, we might be able to cite the broadcast directly. Can't say anything for the popularity award nom yet tho. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

APAN Music Awards

I hope you know that there is a bright-line rule for editors on wikipedia and i.e., The three-revert rule. I saw on APAN Music Awards: Revision history that you have violated this rule. Considering the fact that you are using wikipedia from last 14 years really surprises me that you have violated the rule. I would request you have a check on your edits. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Thanks for your edits on Sing (Travis song), but I was wondering why you made the chart tables unsortable. I find sorting useful, especially when composing a chart performance section or when I need to say something like "[Song] reached the top 10 in x countries". It just makes it easier for me (and other editors/readers) to prove the information. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 01:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember who it was now, but on another music article a long-time music project editor recently (within the last month or two) commented in an edit summary that the tables don't need to be sortable. My poor memory cannot recall the rest of his explanation to provide it for you, but I thought his explanation made sense so I stopped making them sortable. Ofc, I am no authority on the matter so if you think its better to have it then please do restore it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to restore it for now since it's part of my editing philosophy, but if another editor removes it in the future, I won't make a war out of it. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 02:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ResolutionsPerMinute: the only thing I would say is that the year end table doesn't need it since there's just the one entry, so nothing to sort. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. Whenever a see a sortable one-entry table, I make it unsortable, because that really bothers me. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ResolutionsPerMinute: oh my god please ignore that last comment. I was running on no sleep and somehow my stupid brain thought Sing had only one entry in its year-end table when I said that, but it was another article I was looking at while replying to you that I was actually thinking of. You must have thought wtf is she talking about. This tends to happen when I'm here too long, I'm really sorry 🙈🙈🙈. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited K-pop Hot 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IU.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Carlobunnie, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I don't know if you're aware but Boy with Luv was selected as Song of the Year at the 7th KOMCA Copyright Awards. Since it's hosted by KOMCA I guess it's relevant enough to be mentioned on the list of awards. Some sources: 1 2 - Ïvana (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: yeah I remember the news on Pdogg's win being announced at the beginning of Feb. Saw the news about BWL last night, but haven't added it to the table yet cuz I gotta come up with a footnote first and locate sources for it). I was asleep for the past 12(?) hours lol, but I already have the ref for the win tho. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Japan chart

Hey Carlobunnie, I was busy earlier and didn't have time to fully respond. Per the notes at the top of this chart, here:................."The earliest chart data available is for only two weeks in 2008, on the chart issues dated May 10 and November 22. For 2009, chart is missing results for weeks 2009-01-07 – 2009-03-21, 2009-07-25, 2009-12-26, and all 2009 number of weeks charted). For 2010, missing 2010-01-16, 2010-05-22 (stops at 26) 2010-07-03, 2010-07-10, 2010-10-30, 2010-12-18, and all 2010 number of weeks charted. For 2011, missing 2011-01-07 – 2011-01-29, 2011-02-26, 2011-05-07, 2011-07-23, 2011-08-20, 2016-07-16"......... which I made years ago when first doing the BB English language chart review.....they may not be accurate now.

You will need to go through the chart and verify again to be certain which dates are actually still missing. Sometime in subsequent years, another editor used the Japan language page to add some missing entries and did not change my notes....so some of the dates might have been filled in. I did not go through their additions one-by-one to check....and I put it on a list of things to do, but as the page grew, it went to the bottom of the list. I will look for their entries in past edits and try to help update these notes, too.

I didn't want to add this to the Talk page of your draft until we can conclude what is what.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. - it is nice to have someone else interested in these charts. The updates are time consuming, and no matter how much I love them....still nice to see someone else taking the time, with interest!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have found the bulk of the edits I was referring to. The other editor was updating the Japan chart, at the time, weekly and also added some missing dates. Here it is: [1] Starting a review of the additions, I already see that the first citation for the first entry for "I Love You" conflicts with what was added by the editor, the citation says the song was performed by v-u-den, not Ryu Si-won and peaked at #67 on 2008-05-05, not #18 on 2008-05-10 which they added. And, we can no longer see it on the English site where the Japan Hot 100 chart currently starts with April 9, 2011 here [2] and lists only the top 10. As I did not add the first entry and find a problem with the citation, I personally would delete it unless another one can be found. And the review of these additions by that editor needs to be completed.

The page for Ryu Si-won#Singles also charted the song at #18 in 2008, edited in 2011 here [3], but the link to the Japanese website is dead now, alas.

The chart dates always vary by two days on the English site [4] - current week is Feb. 20 and the Japanese site, current week is Feb. 22 [5], but I always used the English site for the dates anyway. The most recent Japan 100 charts, with subscription, lists all 100 positions. The chart I used in the beginning was located under a different URL attached to the old BB subscription service and was moved to the present URL a couple of years ago. At Wayback Machine I am finding some of the chart archived, [6], but not all of it.

As much to say, this chart needed work and had weaknesses, and was the last of the remaining Asian charts on the page, which were my reasons for deleting it. I don't know that it deserves a stand-alone page, but that is for you to decide and other reviewers that may monitor it. I will try to help out some more.At a minimum the very first entry needs verification, and I apologize for that, I should have noticed it earlier, but I trusted the editor's input.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops...I made a mistake on my review of the first entry....I was looking at the May 5 and May 12 chart dates and missed the Ryu Si-won #18 on the May 5 chart....so the only difference on the page is the chart date of May 10, but at that time BB was pre-dating charts by 7 days, so I don't know why the editor listed it as May 10 instead of May 5? At any rate, you might want to go over these entries to be comfortable with publishing the page. Thanks and good luck.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I counted on my fingers to try to account for the May 10 date (May 5 minus 2 equals May 3, plus 7 equals May 10) then looked up the 2008 calendar....May 10 is the date for the Saturday chart, so assuming the Japanese page listed the date of entry, it is probably correct...Now I remember why I didn't double-check this editor's work at the time!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Oh no....I can't stop thinking about it! Now I think the correct chart date should be May 3 on the page....as I pointed out, the sites vary by 2 days (and the chart would not list an entry date! Oh please let me stop!....I think the date is probably what that editor always put for her entries, which is always 2 days past the ones I put....since she was using the Japanese site. I don't know how you may want to reconcile this on the page, if you think it needs it. My brain uses the English site calendar....so I was confused.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie, I'm letting you know that I will copy the above conversation and add it to the discussion which you started at Talk:List of K-pop songs on the Billboard charts for continuity. At this time, another editor has joined the discussion. Thanks,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: no problem. I checked the article's talk page but didn't see anything new but then I checked your talk page and saw the comment there. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeonjun Draft

Could you have a look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Choi_Yeonjun ? I would like if you could make any necessary edits for any grammar errors or anything you think needs to be improved. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: I feel like I should preface this by saying that the comment from the orig page reviewer a month ago still stands and you won't find someone telling you any differently this time around. Yeonjun easily fails to meet notability requirements outside of TXT so he shouldn't have an article just yet. There's a significant lack of coverage from reliable secondary sources on him as an individual since he's barely done anything solo, and the fact that the entire article contains exactly 8 lines about his life/career is more than telling. WP:BETTER would be good for you to read too. He's only been in the industry for 2 years and 99% of that has been TXT-related activities. I'd recommend waiting until he's pursued more solo endeavours first. I'd be happy to help out then. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Pdogg

Would you mind taking a look at my draft for Pdogg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pdogg ? I would appreciate any feedback on the sources and wouldn't mind you checking for grammar errors 52-whalien (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@52-whalien: I'll take an in-depth look at it tomorrow—I'm working on something else atm—but a quick onceover tells me you need to expand the body some more. The prose is too short. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate it! 52-whalien (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

BTS Page: Suggestion

Hello Carlobunnie! Hope you are doing fine. I am looking at BTS page and I am thinking if the "Cultural impact and legacy" section should have a separate page at this point. As more legit information is added with time, the main page keeps getting bigger and bigger. I am wondering if the "Impact Section" should also get its own Wiki page so the main page stays organized and data can be managed easily. I am not an expert in making pages so I thought I suggest you this idea. Facts Spiller (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Facts Spiller: well you're definitely right about both sections getting bigger and bigger. I'm not sure if standalone articles are usually created after a certain point for these sections for BLP articles, though it's possible. Tbf, I stopped editing the BTS page a while now because not only has it become a rly huge article in general, but the work it requires stresses me out greatly. I recently tweaked the smaller, more controllable philanthropy section, but for the most part I generally avoid the page. Maybe you could try asking on the talk page and get feedback from other editors who actively maintain it? I'm probably not the best person to ask this time around sorry ☹️. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Facts Spiller: ok so I did a little checking and the Madonna#Legacy and Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence sections (and their resulting spin-off articles) are probably what you're thinking of for the BTS page so yes it can be done. But you'd still need to mention it on the talk page to get consensus+then help to do it properly. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie: I understand your feelings. It is not only you. I have been noticing that the 2021 section isn't fully updated yet which makes me wonder if others also get stressed out in updating because the main page is huge! I guess I will have to try and update it myself slowly. Anyway, as for the separate page idea, I will post the same suggestion in the BTS Talk Page and see what others say. Facts Spiller (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Facts Spiller: I can't speak for anyone else, but my stress came from having to constantly correct things+cleanup after others all the time, no matter how many comments there were from myself (and other editors) asking people to stick to a consistent format. It became too much, and pointless after a while, so I stopped bothering. Also, some of the editors I used to work with, who were good at keeping the page in check, aren't here anymore/moved on to other pages instead, so I felt even less inclined to keep at it. Everytime I think about the page, it's like a mountain coming down on my head because of all the work I know needs to be done to bring up the article quality. If other editors agree (and I feel they will) about the spin-off articles, I'll take a look when you get things started and offer help if you need it (if I don't feel daunted by the task that is). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie:I have submitted my suggestion in the BTS Talk Page (you can check over there). Let's wait and see what the other editors say. Facts Spiller (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimin Spotify record

I found a source for Jimin surpassing 130m streams on Spotify with his three solo songs (an ip editor mentioned it earlier but it was unsourced/reverted) but I'm unsure as to where to add it - the paragraph has to be rewritten and you're better with words than me, so I'll leave it to you (if/when you have time!). Here is the k-article. - Ïvana (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I think it would be better to update his page when all 3 songs have surpassed 150 million streams, as that's a better milestone. Similar to how mv views are updated after they cross the 100 mil mark. Otherwise we might be expected to update every 10mil streams. What do you think? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, that sounds better. I'll keep that in mind! - Ïvana (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with Draft

I was wondering if you could have a look at the table on my draft and maybe fix it. I've been trying to fix it myself but I seem to only mess it up more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hyojung#Singles Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: looking at it right now. Question though, did all of those songs really not chart on gaon at all, which would mean there's no sales data for them, or does that particular info still have to be added in? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Suddenly Autumn didn't enter the main chart but I did see it charted on Gaon's Mobile Chart, its ranking were 46 & 60. SAAR charted on Gaon's BGM chart at 95 & 88. I'm Loving You entered the BGM chart & both Mobile Charts. Overall they didn't perform well and didn't enter the main charts of Gaon. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Btspurplegalaxy: I did the cleanup for you, but if none of her music has charted (makes the chart positions col moot) and there's no sales to speak about (also moot), I've gotta question the justification of its inclusion in the first place. The fact alone that a song was released doesn't make it or the artist who performed it notable (and entering the Mob+BGM charts doesn't really count tbh). Ik the draft is currently incomplete, but unless you have a lot more info to add about her, I don't think it would pass an AfC review. She has to have considerable recognition outside of OMG to warrant her own article, and so far the draft doesn't show that she does. Just something to keep in mind as you continue working on it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Since then I've added some other works of hers, would you mind having a look at it once more? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: can anything else be found for the "Early life" section? One line is seriously sparse lol. Overall, it does look a bit better compared to last time (and good on you for linking the refs from Career to Filmography, I was actually going to recommend you do that when you left your msg on the 30th) I suppose it might pass, but having never written a BLP article before I can't say for certain. One thing though, seeing that you've already sourced her being a member of OMG in Career, the sources in the lead are unnecessary. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback ! Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your edit on BTS. Regarding you comment, the previous editors appear to have self-reverted after I contacted them on their talk page. After reading the article for the past few days, it looks like the article can be enhanced with about a dozen or two dozen edits towards getting it to peer review quality. If you can restore the version as I have started to edit it, then the article can be moved forward. The writing is in fairly good condition and mostly my edits up to this point have been to try to get a stronger table of contents for the article. If you can restore the article then maybe you could join in to improve the article towards peer review quality. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: sorry about replying late to this. My suggestion would be to sandbox each section you want to change/adjust, let the editors who monitor/regularly contribute to the page then review it (and make any tweaks if necessary), and then once everyone is satisfied, transfer each revamped section to the main page. Another editor and myself already previously discussed a standalone legacy article (see talk section slightly higher up) for BTS so you're on the right track, because others have also realized it's necessary now given how large certain sections are becoming. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you. The brief history of my sequence of edits from last week is that after doing the promoted article for Yuzuru Hanyu it then looked as if the BTS article was going through many of the same large article size issues that were successfully repaired in the Yuzuru article when it was promoted. The old version of the Yuzuru article was approaching 300Kb in size similar to the BTS article which is now approaching 400Kb in size. The approach to deal with this was to rework the Table of Contents of the article into a more useful format for the benefit of readers, and then to re-assess the best places to make article splits in the article. Last week I only made it through half of the edits I had planned for the re-organization of the Table of Contents for BTS before the edits were removed. There was no material deleted or added other than the changes made to the Table of Contents. Also, I started to put the lead section into MOS format for peer review articles which generally does not allow footnote development in the lead section as is currently being done in the third paragraph of the current version of the lead section at BTS. I moved that footnoted material to the Cultural impact section, and then re-named the subsections in the Cultural impact section after separating the legacy comments into a small separate section. There was no deletion of material and effectively no material added. The new Table of Contents I was trying to add was to help move the BTS article toward peer review by providing an enhanced Table of Contents for editors to discuss possible page splits and mergers with other BTS sibling articles due to size issues in the current version of the article. This would help to address the article's large size issues. The BTS article deserves to be considered for peer review and it can be brought to peer review within a week or two if you can restore the 7-8 edits I made last week and if I could complete the edit sequence I had only half-completed last week. If you then do not think that the new Table of Contents works for you, then you can use twinkle to return the article to its previous state of editing as you did last week, and I will likely make no objections. Does that work for you and could you restore last week's edits for the enhancement of the article to move forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: unfortunately I can't revert my revert of all your edits because the page was edited several times after that which would create a problem. I stand by what I said though, rework each section in your sandbox (or better yet create a draft for it - that's what we did back in 2019 when we revamped the BTS awards list) and let other editors review each part as you work your way through it. That would make it easier for everyone, rather than having to constantly check multiple edits as you adjust the article, like you were doing that day.
In the end though, I can only offer suggestions on how this should be approached. If you decide to proceed as before, just be prepared to get reverted at some point or the other because I can guarantee it will more than likely happen when someone doesn't agree with a move you've made. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you. Writing in the sandbox is fine though I currently do not have any new material to add to the article. The main issue for now, I think, is to arrange the Table of Contents into a format which will allow discussion with you and the other top editors of this page for the best places to do one or two page splits. The size of the article is an issue for peer review nomination (its approaching 400Kb) and getting the TOC into a format which would allow the useful discussion for article splits is all I have in mind. I'll suggest the following, which is that I return one of my previous edits to the article which was to make a stand alone Legacy section from already existing text in the article. Since you mentioned that you might like to do a Legacy sub-article at some point in the future, then this new Legacy section would be where you could put your link from the main article to your new Legacy sub-article whenever you get around to it. Let me know if it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Want to work on getting a FL together?

Hey Carlobunnie, I have been thinking about nominating List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020) for FL. I was wondering whether you would help me out since I saw that you had helped List of awards and nominations received by BTS to reach FL status. Regard. EN-Jungwon 19:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: idm helping at all, but just a general fyi that my phone I normally edit with is currently dead (power button is stuck/compressed into the phone body so I can't get it to turn on). I managed to get my old OnePlus one to power on but it has to stay plugged in 24/7 (on a very short USB charger) otherwise it shuts off, even the slightest shift of the cable makes it shut off, so it takes me even longer to make edits now. I have limited access to a shared desktop at nighttime, after 10/11pm into the whee hours of the am (which is why I was so active some hours ago), so be advised that if/when you need me, my responses may come much later at times. It's like I'm running on a diff timezone now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Hopefully, you can get your phone fixed soon. No need to worry about time. The good thing about Wikipedia is that there is no time limit, unlike my assignments. EN-Jungwon 02:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please calm down

In use tags are not this important that you need to be all-caps ranting at people in edit summaries like this. Perhaps it's frustrating for you to run into edit conflicts, but the amount you edit that article, it's like you're not allowing anybody else to edit it or it all has to be your liking when you try to prevent anybody else from editing anything during what is bound to be a high-traffic time considering it just debuted atop the uS Hot 100. Please try to loosen your grip on the article a little and stop acting like you WP:OWN it, because that's the way it looks to me and I'm sure a significant amount of others. Thanks. Ss112 16:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, a user could very well report you for edit warring and going over WP:3RR. @BawinV: or any user disregarding your "in use" tag does not give you the right to go over three reverts. And you have definitely gone over three reverts on that article today, and not all edits you reverted prior were vandalism or exceptions 3RR. Please stop edit warring and making more than three non-vandalism reverts on an article. This smacks of micromanagement and WP:OWN. Ss112 17:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I will second this. The song just got named the most popular in the world at this very moment. There are going to be edit conflicts whether you add a template or not. Please keep calm and civil, and not edit war. Best case scenario you're close to violating all three. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: to be clear, I have absolutely no issue with anyone editing the article. My history with it only shows me undoing disruptive edits, unsourced info, or false content being added to it (someone added a fake negative review from a BBC reporter), which I consider vandalism. To the best of my knowledge I reverted BawinV twice and I think A2013a before that. I didn't go back and check the page history to count so I genuinely apologize for the oversight on my part, but I honestly didn't realize it was so much. It's hard for me to keep track of every single notification about the page on this phone. My use of caps was so editors would see my msgs saying that the page was already being edited because my previous ones in lowercase seemed to have been missed by them. I understand how it could seem like I was perhaps "shouting" or something but I promise you I wasn't. You said "In use tags are not this important..." but I disagree, because the tag's usage was very helpfully recommended to me in the past by another editor as a good practice to help prevent editing conflicts exactly like what occurred today. When the tags are on a page/section, they are there for a reason and should not be disregarded - the notice literally says not to edit until it's removed. I try to use it regularly for the benefit of myself and other editors (I recommend it on occasion if they don't know abt it), especially if I know there may be a sudden influx of edits to a page because I don't want to disrupt someone else's work. So you'll forgive me for not understanding why 2 diff editors blatantly ignoring a clearly visible notice and editing anyways isn't also wrong too? I acknowledge my multiple reverts but there was no malicious or spiteful intent on my part. Nor do I try to micromanage the page. It's history shows other editors actively contribute to it, I just happen to have more edits because I use a very old phone that cuts off on me a lot and so I have to save things in multiple parts all the time, otherwise I lose my edits when the phone dies. I have never forbid anyone from editing the article so I'm very sorry that was the impression you got/I gave off today. It was not my intent at all. This reply alone took me very long to write because my phone shut off twice while replying to you, and then Sergecross73 replied in the middle of my third attempt (lol, just my luck) so I had to start over again. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about La República

I was checking the list of songs written by Yoongi and saw that his appearance in the bb hot 100 songwriters chart wasn't mentioned. Joon's article mentions it but uses this source. I know the website is considered reliable because I saw you using it multiple times. But is it really? Looking at it it's basically a translation of this Soompi article (and not a good one). I haven't checked other instances where the website is used but spanish articles being badly translated copies of english ones is pretty much the norm. So, in my opinion, it would be better to stick to english and korean sources. I found a karticle but haven't replaced the ref yet bc I wanted to hear your opinion. - Ïvana (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: any articles I used from LR in the past were ones that were appropriate/adequate for that particular instance. LR in general is a reliable source but I can't vouch for every single piece they publish as I don't follow them all. Tbh we could probably say the same abt BB, Forbes, and other reliable sources who have written pieces based on soompi/allkpop/chartdata etc. If the particular ref/article (I can't check the links you sent because this phone is giving me trouble) seems to be a soompi do over from what you can tell, then by all means replace it with a better one. I wouldn't say don't use LR at all just because of one poorly translated piece, since non-eng sources are fine to use (at an editor's discretion), but if there's a better written/more acceptable source than LR available in another lang then that should be prioritized over it.
You usually have a good eye for these things anyways so I'd trust your judgement if you say it's a poorly done piece. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of M Countdown Chart winners (2007)

Information icon Hello, Carlobunnie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of M Countdown Chart winners (2007), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BTS world record

Obviously undoing this back and forth won't do any good, so let me explain here. The two records in question are (copied from the article):

Publication Year World record Record holder Ref.
Guinness World Records 2020 Most viewers for a music concert live stream Bang Bang Con: The Live [1]
Most viewers for a music concert live stream on a bespoke platform BTS [2]

References

  1. ^ "Most viewers for a music concert live stream". Guinness World Records. June 15, 2020. Archived from the original on July 22, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  2. ^ "Most viewers for a music concert live stream on a bespoke platform". Guinness World Records. Archived from the original on May 23, 2021. Retrieved May 23, 2021.

As you can see, both of these records are the exact same, or rather, the first doesn't actually exist and just points to the latter. Hopefully this clears things up. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gultejp: "As you can see, both of these records are the exact same, or rather, the first doesn't actually exist and just points to the latter." - no I didn't in fact see because your statement doesn't clearly explain what you meant. Based on my history with the page (because I added those particular records at the request of another editor), both records were valid individual records that existed at the time they were added to the page, as evidenced by the archives of the attached refs, and as far as I knew still existed (no one else who edits the page brought it up and they sometimes know stuff long before I do). So surely you can see how it looks from my end, when someone who's never edited the page before appears all of a sudden and says both records are the same, doesn't provide any proof or explanation, and just changes it. Could have saved us both reverting each other if you'd simply said in your edit summary that the url for record X redirects to record Y meaning that X record no longer exists and should be removed. I wouldn't have reverted that. Now that I've checked them myself I understand what you were trying to say and I'll update the page accordingly. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:AGF If you were not sure, you could have asked me instead of just reverting. In any case I checked the archives and "Bang Bang Con: The Live" was never the holder of any record, it was always BTS (and the first archive was actually archived before they held the record). The name of the record was just changed. Glad it's resolved at least. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 04:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gultejp: where did I say was unsure about anything? I don't revert things unless I fully believe an edit is wrong or atleast partially incorrect in some way. I explained why I thought you were wrong, which was the reason why I reverted you. The first record was archived+added to the table when GWR announced it in July 2020. The "second" record appeared almost an entire year later. None of us knew it was the same record now updated with diff wording. Talk page discussion on the article shows other editors believed it was an additional separate record hence it being added lower down. Idk what else you want me to tell you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you were sure of it. That doesn't mean you were correct, and your edit summary "not a duplicate" was not helpful. Once again, WP:AGF. This time it was you and the other editor who were ignorant. Anyway, this discussion has run its course. –  Gultejp  ('sopp) 05:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gultejp: my "not a duplicate" summary was in response to your orig "removing duplicate" summary, which I already explained above to you why it was not very helpful to begin with. My summary simply quoted your own words back at you. Idk what sort of help you wanted in response if you already believed it was a duplicate record. If you choose to say/imply certain things about the way I responded to your edits every time you reply to me, then the convo has not run its course as the onus is on me to correct your misunderstandings, and so far I have been both polite and reasonable with you in that regard without resorting to name-calling. I bid you good night now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Help me!

I asked a question across at WT:BIOGRAPHY 9 days ago regarding the best way to mention or list awards/accolades received by an individual who is both a music producer+a businessman/CEO and have yet to get a response. I looked at a few other BLPs for guidance but would like a definitive response of some kind. Where else would be appropriate to direct my query? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject pages are a good place to start, but are not always well viewed- you may try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited K-pop Hot 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zico.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A few requests

Hey, hope you're doing well. Sorry to be annonying but when/if you have time, could you give me your opinion on two things?

First this draft: Draft:List of songs produced by Suga. I didn't bother to expand the lead bc I feel like the main article is the one with writing credits. Some song titles use adjacent sets of parentheses which I know should be avoided per MOS:BRACKET. But idk if using a break line is enough, or maybe just removing romanizations is better. Other than that, I think it looks good enough to be published.

Second, I've been thinking about nominating List of best-selling albums in South Korea for FL. I was going to submit it for a peer review (bc I'm pretty much the only one who updates it so it's not like there's a fixed group of ppl to ask for consensus) but figured out I would ask for your opinion first because of your contributions in List of awards and nominations received by BTS, and because you would probably answer faster lol. I'm pretty new to this so I only focused on updating all the refs/sales/captions. Some editors want to add more pics/expand the lead to mention specific records, such as first girlgroup/male soloist/female soloist/etc to achieve x number of sales after x years. There has been a revival of physical sales that started only a few years ago so a lot of acts qualify to be mentioned. IMO that's unnecessary plus I don't really like when there's a lot of pictures bc it looks cluttered so I'm adamant about it. I think that's just opening the door to IPs/fans adding random records for bragging points tbh. But Hobi's article, which is a FL, has a bunch of pics so idk. What do you think?. - Ïvana (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: you're not being annoying at all so please don't say that lol. I'm probably the actual annoying one, with all the questions and help I always have and need. The draft looks good so far, but you probably should create a lead of some kind because that's preferred/required(?) per MOS guidelines. Similar "produced by" articles should be able to help you come up with something, even if it's a small pgraph. That's better than having nothing at all. The brackets thing, I want to say remove the romanizations, but I also feel like they're necessary to have so I'm 50/50 on how to find a middle ground. The small text formatting you should probably get rid of.
There's an editor, I think it's Aoba94 or 64 or something like that, who I've seen on FLC reviews all the time who might be able to give you better insight on how to improve the albums list than me before you submit as an FLC, but to the best of my knowledge (and per advice given to me by other editors) it's up to your discretion to include as few/as many pictures as you feel is appropriate. Doesn't have to be a ton to match every single record but the article could have some more. With regards to how many records to mention in the lead, you don't want your pgraphs too long and bulky but you need a substantial lead and additional records would be good to mention. If Aoba isn't busy atm, they should be able to advise on including every single record or not, and what the best way to pick which ones are added to the lead would be. If I can help in any way (and only if you need me to), I don't mind chipping in a bit, but FLC reviewers are pretty good at trimming things down, or making suggestions to bulk them up, if they feel like the lead is lacking or could mention more. So again, it's up to you if you want to add more record notes and let them decide what doesn't need to be there, or you can wait for them to ask if there are no other records that could have been included. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of BTS live performances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 112.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bae Yoon-jung

Sorry to bother you, but if you're able to could you please have a look at this? In particular the Impact and Influence section. Your help would be greatly appreciated in fixing any unnecessary sentences. Now that I look at it that heading isn't even appropriate for that section's content. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: sure, looking at it now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Btspurplegalaxy: having reviewed that draft, if you want to rearrange+merge the information into more appropriate sections/subheadings, these two articles might be helpful. That aside, Bae doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article, as reviewers have pointed out (among other things), so I didn't rewrite or fix anything because I think it would be pointless as that draft should honestly just be deleted. Idk if there's any coverage of her in Korean ones to substantially change her notability (and enable one to reliably source that entire thing) but I doubt it very much. I'm sorry of that isn't what you were looking for but it reads like something you'd find on soompi or akp or another similar kpop/fan site. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MTV Video Music Award for Best Editing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drake and What's Next.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water Runs Dry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babyface.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Archives really don't need to be added as soon as you update a page

Regarding your edits to List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2021, I really don't think it's necessary to add an archive straight after you update a list. You might disagree, but you could just run a script every so often to automatically archive the links you haven't archived. Gaon chart links have worked for years—the URLs haven't changed in years, and their information rarely, if ever, changes. They're not about to immediately go dead. It looks as if today you've even used archive.today because the Wayback isn't working when it's not necessary either way. Ss112 02:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: it might not be necessary to you, but there's nothing wrong with doing it either. I got into the habit of archiving from back when I worked on the revamp of the BTS awards article for its FL submission, and subsequent GA's I assisted another editor with. It has always been mentioned as a good thing so I kept up with it. I edit from my phone and can't make use of scripts, nor does it bother me to manually add archives. Also, I archive regularly on both sites, so my using one over the other is neither here nor there. Forgive me, but this is a very strange thing of you to nitpick. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I simply pointed out it was not necessary because those links have basically never stopped working. I'm well aware archiving is usually done when getting articles into GA or FL shape—which I suppose means you intend to do this for the Gaon Digital 2021 list down the line. Frankly I wouldn't do this on a list article of all things, especially one I didn't even create, but whatever. Ss112 03:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

BTS Talk page

There's an ongoing conversation regarding the removal of some content. If it's okay with you, I would like to hear your opinion about it. --52-whalien (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@52-whalien: I saw the discussion, and normally I would participate, but I'd prefer not to have anything to do with one of the editors currently involved. I have my own concerns built up over the course of a year about their bias/neutrality on certain things and I'd rather avoid them altogether. Sorry I can't lend my voice this time. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello Carlobunnie. Hope you're doing well. I wanted to ask you if the "Korea First Brand Awards" are the same as the "Brand of the Year Awards" since I recently saw BTS won in the 2021 edition of the latter. And also your opinion about the "Brand Customer Loyalty Awards", ¿do you think the event is notable? It seems you know more about this topics so I thought you might be able to help me :) -- Pandadri (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pandadri: sorry for the late reply on this. In my mind I swear you asked me this on the BTS awards article talk page+that I responded there, so oops 🤦🏽‍♀️. They're both awarded by the Korea Consumer Brand Forum and are separate awards, however I don't know if they're worth including in the table. What makes the KCBF a notable institution? Eng transls from Soompi say that the "Brand of the Year Awards recognizes brands that have impressed over the past year with the winners determined through online votes", while "The Korea First Brand Awards chooses the most exciting brands for the upcoming year by conducting surveys and consulting with experts". They're not something I would personally include, iirc in past years editors have said they're not particularly notable, but you can ask for more opinions on the awards page if you like. I can look further into it after that depending on the outcome. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

BTS BIGGEST GROUP/BOYBAND IN THE WORLD

@Carlobunnie:Ok i should have posted my doubt here, anyway Hi Carlobunnie there is only one article of some low level website stating that exo is biggest boy band in word (in 2016 after 1D disbanded) but still they added it in their page. But there are literally more than 50 articles saying BTS is biggest boy band in the world (articles from 2019-2021) like vogue, cnn, etc genuine sources still why are you not adding it??

Also how bts nomination is 572 when on calculation its 567. Wins are correct on calculation.

Since you haven't signed your comments I can't tag you in my replies, but to the best of my knowledge the number of total nominations is correct, new ones just get added on to the previous total. Maybe I or another editor counted incorrectly as some point, but no one else who monitors the page has said the total is wrong, so I also thought it correct all this time. If it is wrong, I had no way to know you were fixing it rather than making a disruptive edit because you didn't leave any note in your edit summary indicating why you changed it. I'll recount it to double check but you'll have to give me time to do so. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie:Sorry i never felt the use of signing in cuz most of the time pages i touch are field hockey, olympic sports etc and some low visiting websites since nobody changes the infos at all (last changes would be like one month to 1 year back).

Since i love to collect data i found out that BTS page though is well structured but it's not updated well enough. For ex it talks only about sales till map of the soul 7 (20m on gaon) and haven't added sales of afterwards releases,right now at present they have crossed 30m (map of the soul journey +BE+ BE one more addition + Butter+ past album sales) in 2021 alone they have sold around 5.6m albums.


Also as far as that title is concerned "king of kpop" and biggest boyband in the world. I thought of giving you the links but you can find it easily just type"BTS biggest boy band in the world" you will get vogue, cnn, 7au(or something like tht Australian trusted media network) etc

and many more so if you could update all these with the help of those articles.

In exo page i saw biggest boy band thing but its 1 article of 2016 after 1D disbanded and not a trusted website but still they have added it. Cuz rn nobody will care as everyone knows about bts but you know after 10-15 years it will be better if things like these are mentioned.

Would still be nice if you could sign your comments though. Ah okay, you're talking about updating the BTS article specifically? Or also the BTS albums discography page too? Since you mentioned total sales. The 30mil sales needs an article from a reliable source that says sales have reached or surpassed that number. We can't change it otherwise. If we total Gaon's sales ourselves and write it, that would be WP:OR which is a no no. As for the biggest boyband, kings of kpop etc. titles, I'm pretty sure the Impact+influence section mentions whatever titles are acceptably sourced. If you want something else added, the correct place to bring it up is on the article's talk page (and provide the sources to support because they will ask you for them), not mine. You can also mention the unreliable website reference you saw being used. I stopped regularly contributing to the BTS page a while now, and only make occasional minor updates here and there, so I can't be of more help than my replies to you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: cool, thanks alot for answering. I never knew this much and all happens behind famous wiki pages.All the best for your future edits, new pages etc. Peace✌️

Np, but seriously though, go make your inquiries on the BTS page. The editors across there will help out once you follow the steps I mentioned. Have a good night! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Named refs

For what it's worth, there is little point in removing the name from a named ref. Just because something isn't currently used doesn't mean that it could in the future, and an edit that does nothing other than potentially cause a hassle in the future is rather silly. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: the only reason I removed it is because I've seen other editors remove ref names that aren't invoked elsewhere on a page on multiple occasions, so I thought that was normal to do? If I'd known it was a "hassle" and considered "silly" I wouldn't have done it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for my wording, I didn't mean to imply that your edit specifically was a hassle; I've seen plenty of instances in the future where a reference gets duplicated multiple times on a page because it isn't named initially so the editor adding in the second/third instance don't realize it's already there. The "hassle" simply comes from then noticing that and then combining the refs, and it being silly is because removal doesn't actually do anything to the rendered page (so the relatively-small probability that it needs to be a named ref and thus the name re-added trumps the nonexistent "problem" of it being named).
As far as others doing this: I honestly don't think I've ever seen anyone removing names, only adding them. I don't doubt that you've seen it, since you've said it, just saying I've been around a while and apparently I hang out in different circles than you. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: in any case I restored it, so we should be good now! I'll remember to leave them alone in future. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Music of Dune (2021 film).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Chaos Chapter: Freeze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Music Bank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

BB charting

Hi Carlobunnie, I made some changes on the Japan chart here and here. In case there has been a misunderstanding....the 4th row on this page is "Peak position", which meant the changes made to "Lalisa" were correct. I backtracked to last three chart updates and made corrections on Sep. 25 chart (changed both "Lalisa" and "Day By Day" to peak positions and added "Stay Gold" as a Re-entry). Then I updated October 2 charting again...including "My Universe" with BTS. Let me know if you don't understand. Although the first row is "Chart date" (Entry date)....the 4th row has always been "Peak position" (which may be a different date, which is not documented on this page unless it is a No. 1 entry and that is noted in the "Notes Section"). Maybe this is where the confusion is....Another editor in the past also misunderstood this and was adding the Peak "date" to the first row. Let me know if it is not clear. All of the charts on these pages are the same and the past updates on the Japan chart were done so (with the Peak position showing). Sorry and thanks...--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: no need to explain. I'm aware of what the cols are for (note I didn't make the same mistake w any other song updates), I just got mixed up with that one song for some reason (idk why my brain kept saying entry position instead of peak position). I do think it was unnecessary to correct it the way you did. One edit updating the peak + an explanation in the edit summary would have been good enough. Also, I didn't add "My Universe" because it's not classified as a K-pop song by any source anywhere (at least none that I've seen i.e. BB, RS, NME etc.) BTS being on the song doesn't automatically make it k-pop. The article is after all, kpop songs on the BBJH100, not k-pop artists. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Carolbunnie, I made several edits instead of one and it was easier for me to follow by chart date and I also wanted to show my changes by chart date in the Edit Summaries: "Lalisa" to peak date; "Day By Day" to peak date; "Stay Gold" was a missed re-entry; "Sticker" correction, song by NCT 127, not Stray Kids; "My Universe" (added due to all language songs being added by "K-pop artists", previous Discussion about this issue occurred at Talk:List of K-pop songs on the Billboard charts and at Talk:List of K-pop albums on the Billboard charts....Although we agreed to remove Lay and WayV's chartings as they were C-pop not K-pop, no general consensus was reached. Due to this I later added this phrase to the pages' Introducion Section: "and songs performed by K-pop artists". No editors have complained about the addition of "other language" songs since then...except "Old Town Road", which re-mix by BTS did not qualify as raising the charting level, and I did not add it. As I previously mentioned to you about the addition of "Japanese language" songs to this Japan chart...the issue is still up for debate. But, as I said, since no one has complained, and everyone is certainly interested in where "K-pop" artists chart on the BB charts, regardless of language or genre of the songs....I had continued to add all charted songs (and albums)...again, as I said, with no further complaints or corrections by other editors. You may open the Discussion again at the Talk page, if you like, but for me, I find it not to be a big issue, at this time. I am happy that other editors have been interested in the BB K-pop pages and I get corrected all the time, due to the updates being tedious. It is nice to know others are looking out for my mistakes and I don't take them personally. Thanks as always for your hard work,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bonnielou2013 yes SG was a missed re-entry, which I clearly stated in a subsequent edit where I added it after realizing. Me writing SKZ instead of NCT was a typo (both groups are very similar to me+I pasted the wrong name in error). Things like a typo+peak fixes could've been consolidated in one edit instead of multiple (in my case, because of the condition of the device I edit w, I can't always save in one go). I appreciate the hefty amt of work you've done/do with the list, but those edits amounted to unnecessary duplicates.
I'm aware of those talk page discussions. Teemeah shared similar sentiments there to mine above about MU. And so we're clear, my comment was a clarification on why I didn't include it in my update, in response to your mentioning you added it, as opposed to a correction—I ultimately felt it would be out of place on the page. I honestly don't see a talk page discussion gaining much traction since even prior to the page split the orig article didn't get a ton of traffic from other editors for discussions either, but maybe on the WP:KO page yes. No editors "complaining" about something doesn't necessarily equate to current practices being wo issue. I mean just as an e.g. the orig page was way too long for quite some time, and very obviously so, and had MOS:NUM issues as well, yet no one "complained" abt its length or took it upon themselves to split it (I didn't forget that you tried once before). Whether that means no one noticed, didn't care enough to "complain"/do it themselves, or too few editors monitor the page, is open to interpretation.
I don't have a particular stance on Jpn-lang songs in the list, but since the pattern has been to include them, perhaps the page could be renamed, to "List of Kpop artists on the BBJH100". That would cover any Kpop artist credited on a song on the chart regardless of its language. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Carlobunnie, so that we have no hard feelings, I will offer to continue doing the Japan chart updates along with the others, if you like. One more chart "Dance Mix/Show Airplay" is also late every week, like the Japan one, so I will just do them together, or a week later, as I do that chart. I know you have a lot more pages, as you said before, that you do frequent updates on and I am doing the other BB updates anyway. I use the English language Japan chart (with the subscription service) as the Japan language page lists some songs in English and some in Japanese and it is harder to locate the K-pop ones there, for me anyway. Just let me know OK. Thanks, --Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie....Sorry, late response. I apologize if I have offended you. As I have said, My manner of editing chart updates is week-by-week and I can't do it backwards...maybe my thinking is linear, but it confuses me to do it any other way, unless I add it to my Sandbox and add up all the subsequent chart weeks there. I did not mean to offend you, please don't feel that way. Thanks for your thoughts about adding other language/genre songs, etc. Frankly, due to the massive work the BB charts have required, I simply found it too cumbersome to "analyze" each song or album that charted. Yes, I was the one that brought up the issue at the Talk pages and saw that the direction was tilting towards excluding English language songs, in particular. But for me, working on the updates weekly, it meant I would have to listen to each and every song, go to that artist's page or song page (if one existed) and make a determination if it qualified for K-pop or not. Another editor added Pinkfong's "Baby Shark" song....what to do...simply going through all the charts weekly was mind-boggling. And excluding songs with English phrasing (how much is too much English in a song?) and leaving out hit songs and K-pop milestones on the charts seemed wrong to me. "Butter" and "Permission to Dance", as latest examples, and BoA's groundbreaking album BoA, or the many collaborations of K-pop and other artists. Simply scouring through many charts and searching for K-pop artists and catching all the new artists that I may not have heard of....and figuring out the multiple song mixes and releases in other languages and which was charting this week....and then the social charts (for artist's names)....did Jackson hit on Social 50 this week for a Korean song (ie. K-pop) or was it a Chinese release? And how do I make that determination anyway. So, if I left it in black-and-white....my work was easier...see artist's name (check), add to list (check). Thanks for your attention and discussions with me. All of the pages don't get a lot of viewing traffic and especially these two new ones we split off, the World Digital Songs and the Japan one. Sometimes it seems the work isn't worth the effort. And like my attempting to abandon the Japan chart to cut page size for WP rules, I have considered throwing in the towel altogether. I started the first page in December 2014 and it's been a fun hobby for me. But sometimes I think that interested readers can simply log on to BB and read the results themselves. Talk to you later.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: you haven't offended me at all. We were simply having a discussion about issues concerning the page so not sure what I said to give you that impression. I am confused by your response though, as I subsequently suggested 1) broaching the topic (the inclusion of Jpn-lang songs) on the WP:KO talk page to reach more editors if that's something you wanted, or 2) possibly renaming the page to help reduce the unsurety of having to determine whether songs of a certain lang should be included or not. But for some reason you bypassed all that and instead started talking about kpop-related songs/artists/albums on the various BB charts in general? My comments were specifically regarding any song by kpop artists that entered the BBJapanH100 only. All of that aside, I can also just tag the page for speedy deletion to give you one less headache to worry about. At the end of the day, ppl can just check the charts themselves like you said. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks C. Good, we're fine then. My pity party aside (of course I am not ending my work now), I thought you were talking about all the BB K-pop pages as our discussion branched from those Talk page discussions. Sorry for the digression. RE: Japan chart page only...if it is just the matter of this recent inclusion of "My Universe"...I had added it to the main Song page which the Japan page is attached to. If you want to exclude it, on the Japan chart page, I won't object, please take it off again. Re: Japan language songs, you uploaded the page with them on it and as you know, I also have no objection to them being there. I have said above that I feel the wording of the first paragraph of the page covers the issue fairy well. My biggest headaches with WP work has been any misunderstandings and hard feelings. Yes, I said I could have conducted my edits in another manner and apologized. If we are good now, that is all that matters to me. Updates are tomorrow again and as I have volunteered again, I can do the Japan page, too...no problem (unless I faint or die from exhaustion.....poor me...lol!)--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: yes I uploaded the table w the Japanese songs included, because that's exactly how it was on the main article prior to the split. That was not as an indication of any particular preference on my part for their inclusion. Honestly, don't let maintenance of the pages (which you do quite a lot of) wear you out. It's not worth it. I used to be like that with certain pages, and possibly still am to an extent, but I have learnt to relax my grip a little so to speak, and not let things cause me as much stress as they did in the past. I would still like to help find the missing older entries, so when you have the time perhaps you can explain to me how you do it because I tried inputting searches via the dates and go no results. Unless a subscription is required to access data that old (i think u mentioned you have one). If it's not something I can help w then I'll just leave the page alone. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Carlobunnie. The older entries are at the Japan Hot 100 on the Japan BB page, since the English charts only go back to April 9, 2011. But it is twice as tedious, as I said, due to entries being partially in English, but mostly in Japanese. That's where I got the last ones I added. And please do any edits whenever you like, especially catching my mistakes on the weekly updates. When an IP editor catches my mistakes, I literally beg them to join WP and join in...hahaha. Thanks again, have a good day!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hey, just wanted to inform you that I've moved your query from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Unlike most other noticeboard pages, RSN for some reason uses the main page for discussions. I also restored the conversation at RSP for archiving and added a template to indicate that it was moved. I hope you don't mind my meddling, also I think it might have caused a second ping for you so sorry about that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: it's not problem, but the reason I didn't use the template is because I changed the wording of what I orig wrote when I went across there to ask. It looks weird now cuz in reply to my "new" ask there's your comment telling me to move it to where it currently is and my reply saying I'll do so lol. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops, just noticed that you added a bit in the new ask, if you want to you can still re-add it to the sentence. And yup, it looks weird but it also contained my comment on the sources and it's better to preserve discussion history. There's banner at the top saying it was moved so hopefully it won't confuse anyone too much. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine either way. Thanks again for the assist. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited VIXX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Title track.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

BTS awards

Who makes the page semi protected? If you can, can you please make the bts awards page semi protected. Many new editors or random people are just toying around with the data. Data For Life (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Data For Life: I wasn't around to do so, but I did ask another editor to report them if they continued disrupting the page, and I see that they were given a two week editing ban, so we're all good now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:BT21

Information icon Hello, Carlobunnie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:BT21, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 47th People's Choice Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Heize discography

Hi. I understand you'll probably say that you were still in the process of working on it, but really, the lead artist section on Heize discography was a mess and I don't understand why you left it like that. Even if you were in the process of moving the soundtrack songs into the main table (which I've finished doing for you), you could have cleaned it up. I guess you didn't preview before saving or scroll down to see the formatting mismatches that broke the table. Also, I'm sure you aware, but most Korean artists' discographies keep their soundtrack appearances separate from their main chronology of singles, so this appears to be your preference and I don't understand why you felt the need to change it. Ss112 03:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the BTS discography talk page a while back and an editor pointed out that for discographies in general on WP, soundtrack singles/albums aren't separated but included in the main table (as done with beyonce, taylor swift etc.), and there's no existing explanation for why they're separated. So per that discussion, I merged it on the TXT discog, and then Heize's when I started working on it. It's not a personal preference thing. I do check my previews, but I genuinely don't know what errors you're referring to so my apologies for whatever broke that I wasn't aware of. I haven't been back to the article in a while because my anxiety acted up badly the last time I was editing it, so I stayed away from it for a bit to avoid getting agitated. Ik the lead is incomplete, but I couldn't exactly use the under construction tag to explain its state because after a few days of me not editing the page it would've been removed by another editor. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well, that doesn't look like a consensus, only a local discussion about what to do on BTS singles discography. And I specifically recall being the one adding their "soundtrack" singles from BTS World into the main table, as I created all those singles' articles and the article for BTS World when they came out, so it had obviously been separated by somebody since. Anyway, I know in general discographies on Wikipedia incorporate the soundtrack singles into the main singles table—that's why I said "most Korean artists' discographies". I don't have a particular interest in questioning why it is the way it is for Korean artists specifically, but as you've proven with your edits to the Heize discography article, it's a laborious process to incorporate them back in so it's kept going for whatever reason. As for what I'm referring to, the broken table here. Ss112 05:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlobunnie/Archive_3&oldid=1200711226"