Talk:Suppasit Jongcheveevat

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:

• Suppasit Jongcheveevat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

- In the Awards section for Best Kiss Scene change from Won TO Won (with Kanawut Traipipattanapong) - In the Awards section in all of the categories for Best Couple change from Won TO Won (with Kanawut Traipipattanapong) - In the Awards section for Best Scene change from Won TO Won (with Kanawut Traipipattanapong) - In the Awards section for Best Couple of the Year change from Won TO Won (with Kanawut Traipipattanapong)

- In the Acting Carreer section change from Suppasit won "Best Kiss Scene" at the LINE TV Awards 2020 for a scene in TharnType: The Series TO Suppasit and fellow actor Kanawut Traipipattanapong won "Best Kiss Scene" at the LINE TV Awards 2020 for a scene in TharnType: The Series. - In the Acting Carreer section change from Suppasit has also appeared in the February issue of Harper's Bazaar Thailand as the first BL couple to do it TO Suppasit and Kanawut also appeared in the February issue of Harper's Bazaar Thailand as the first BL couple to do it. - In the Acting Carreer section change from Suppasit along with his co-star made a guest appearance in the 2020 series "Why R U?" as Tharn TO Suppasit along with co-star Kanawut made a guest appearance in the 2020 series "Why R U?" as Tharn and Type. Wikisms12345 (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Rng0286 (talk) conts (extended confirmed and rollbacker!) Don’t judge a book by it’s cover (check rights) D'oh! 06:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversies Section

The following discussion 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.

---

Okey dokey. Something is going on here, and we need to discuss it. Pinging everyone involved: Horus, Tvcccp, Adakiko.

What should we do here? Seems like there is some off-wiki mobilization going on. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 09:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would wait for the admin response. These people are doing nothing but embarrass themselves and their beloved artist. --Horus (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horus: I would too. I would keep going, but I would be in violation of 3RR so I can't keep going. I guess we will wait and see. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing would be a waste of page history. Put a watch and update it when it's PP. Adakiko (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: We're good here, PP was added. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a need to add this section and why are you adamantly adding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelenamsj (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kelenamsj: Because it was already sourced with reliable sources. Please stop edit warring over the article. Repeated edit warring can lead to a block. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517:There is no need to add that section in his page. It was not originally there. Please stop re adding an unncessary section to avoid continuous re-editing of the page. Someone has been vandalizing his thai wiki page until it was locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelenamsj (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kelenamsj: It's been protected and the section reintroduced. Also sign your posts with 4 tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. Thank you. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 09:58, 12 January 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.

Need to remove the controversy part which contains defamatory misinformation

Neha mew (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The content is wp:reliably sourced by multiple sources. Have the sources retract their content. Or, discuss the quality of the sources at wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Adakiko (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The references are to low-quality gossip news pieces that mostly only reproduced the drama from social media without providing any original reporting or analysis. While the entire episode may be worth mentioning, I don't see how it would warrant over a sentence or two of coverage, and an entire Controversies section does seem WP:UNDUE, considering Slywriter's recent removal of puffery content. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

NOT A FAN SITE

This is an encyclopedia, not Mew's personal page. Content must be sourced to Independent Reliable Sources. Press releases, Youtube, and any party connected to Mew are not independent reliable sources. If uninvolved sources are not talking about the achievement, show, song, appearance then it does not belong on Wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, while much of the removal was warranted, I don't think the entire discography section should have been, nor the part about him starting his own company. Please keep in mind that while source independence is a requirement for establishing notability, there is no ban on non-independent sources as long as the content is not controversial, so press releases should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul_012, for the CEO, part of the issue is that if no one else cares to write about it, is it really WP:DUE especially to then use in the lede to claim "entrepreneur/CEO".

Discography, I struggled with and ultimately removed because of the "self serving" clause. Perhaps I am reading too much into that line but directing readers to a youtube channel is something the subject has a vested interest in. Be much better with independent sourcing or perhaps restore with Citation needed tags (not most blp rule compliant but ultimately it is non-controversial material).Slywriter (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've restored some of the removed content. Most of the problematic stuff really needed rewriting for puffery removal rather than wholesale deletion. Thai sources are trivially identifiable to those who know the language, as entertainment news sources typically report on actors' every move. If they're good enough to support negative content, they must be for positive stuff as well.

As an aside, while not any single editor's fault, I think it was a rather poor showing on the part of us regular Wikipedians that positive content was removed from this BLP due to poor referencing, while negative content was added, because those of us familiar enough with referencing requirements only cared to add them for the negative material. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Awards

pinging Kelenamsj

First, do not edit further without answering the Conflict of Interest concern raised on your talk page.

Second, if secondary sources are not discussing the award then it really not for Wikipedia. Reprinted Press releases are not secondary sources. WP:ABOUTSELF has some guidelines and exceptions but it is not an invitation to bombard the page with every last activity of the subject. Show why the awards are WP:DUE on this talk page before reinserting in the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Then may I ask why these awards are stated in other wiki articles but are not deleted yet you are deleting awards in this? The awards that I have indicated are notable in Thailand. You can check other Thai articles regarding this Kelenamsj (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Junk in one article doesn't make it acceptable for another. Also, please state whether you have any connection to the subject.Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said these Awards are notable in Thailand and have been talked about. I could add further references for the said awards and nominations. I am no way connected to the subject in the article, I am just a contributor updating information. Kelenamsj (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your only editing is this page and your first edit was to blank a controversy section, but alright if you say so.

As to the material provide references that are independent of the award and the subject that didn't come from a press release. If the awards are notable in Thailand this should not be a problem.Slywriter (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, will do so Kelenamsj (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed. As stated from the above concern, Press release are fine. Why are you saying press release resources are not allowed? Kelenamsj (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If no one else is talking about the award then its "self-serving" to use press releases to establish the award as due to be listed. If the awards are already established as significant on their own then sourcing of subject recieving is less relevant. Line TV is the only one that has clear significance given a wikipedia article exists of the awards independent of any recipients claiming receiptSlywriter (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Kom Chad Luek at least is recognized as a major award. (See my comments here) The others, not so much, but they have tended to be added to lots of Wikipedia articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed many citations in the award section are questionable. For example, this citation which is listed for Howe award came from Kazz magazine, both Kazz magazine and Howe magazine are owned by the same company so it's definitely self-serving. Both of these citation came from entertainment blogs that accept paid coverage. Lastly, this citation the publisher is Kom Chad Luek Online (LINE TODAY is just a secondary feed from the main article) covering the Kom Chad Luek award. But the last one might not be problematic since Kom Chad Luek award is quite notable in itself. A Sacrifice to an Ochlocracy (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Awards section is still junk with junk references including now "Pending", which may be the height of absurdity . Seriously, this is not his fan page. Find relevant citations that show the awards are notable beyond the subject and the award sponsor.Slywriter (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, I think "Pending" quite clearly means that the work or person was nominated, but the final results have not yet been announced. The final result will be "Won" if they won, and "Nominated" if not. Isn't this the case for all award lists on Wikipedia? --Paul_012 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul_012, I could be reading the source wrong but it seemed to say a list of finalist will be compiled from whatever voting occurred and to stay tuned.Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul 012 and Slywriter: My take on that source is the same as Slywriter's. I didn't even find SV's name on that page neither in English nor Thai versions. I didn't see any obvious links to a list. Adakiko (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Did learn something new out of this that we use "pending" in the period between nomination and award, which is a bit awkward since they are a nominee at that point but that's a different discussion. So my edit summary is partially wrong as the objection should be "Pending" status should not be used unless an actual nomination has occurred. Slywriter (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both; I missed that as I was mainly looking at the edit summaries and hadn't actually checked the sources. Anyway, it's moot now, since the final candidates have been announced.[1] However, they are referred to as candidates, and are separate from the nominees to the main awards (which will be announced later). I think it doesn't warrant mentioning. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)