Jump to content

Talk:AKB48/Archive 2

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

Editing member lists

Please, before you update member lists, refer to http://www.akb48.co.jp/about/members/ if the change you are about to edit is already included there. This is the only official source for membership (and updated very frequently). Personal announcements by members should be included if confirmed by management. Exceptions are graduations that are not updated on the website. Also, make sure, that you actually change any instances and references of member counts throughout the article. Thirdly, if members graduate (i.e. leave the group), take your time, and add them to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_members_of_AKB48. Thank you very much. Rka001 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AKB48 timeline, List of former members of AKB48

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKB48 timeline.
We have moved some important content about graduations, etc. there, now someone wants to delete it from Wikipedia completely. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former members of AKB48. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minami Minegishi (2nd nomination) .--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

sosenkyo elections

Should there be a table or section/article about the different elections and resultant rankings? Results have been posted but almost all of it lacks references, or any context as to which election is for what single. I added some detail to the AKB48 discography. A table would be great to summarize the ones that have taken place so far, including:

  • number of election (to explain the numbering in roster)
  • year of election
  • election single (number/title)
  • (optional) election period or results announcement date
  • single (number/title)
  • (optional) size of field
  • (optional) top vote getter
  • Notes (candidacy and format changes, non-single balloting and texting options)

- AngusWOOF (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fan article

AngusWOOF asked me to elaborate on the placement of the Fan POV tag. For the most part it's actually decently written, much better than what I run into in the K-pop department. But the article as a whole is, I'm sorry to say, completely illegible because it seems to consist completely of personnel announcement and changes. I mean, it's a ridiculous amount of information, even in the text alone. And the issue here is, of course, that these girls are for better or worse interchangeable; how could they not be, in this concept? That is, they have no independent notability, and any information on their position, team, election, trainee status, blood group, boyfriend (oh, not allowed), graduation, promotion, demotion, and what not is only of interest to the fan. The reader who is not interested in that intricate detail will have to go elsewhere since one can't see the forest for the trees.

And all that is before you even look at the members section, which is (no disrespect intended to whoever set up those nice tables) the most atrocious amount of excessive detail I have ever seen outside of manga and Family Guy. It defines fan information, and it should go, completely. Claiming that it has encyclopedic value is fooling oneself that we're dealing here not with a product but with...something else (these people are not members of ABK48 in the way that Bono is a member of U2, or some non-notable person in a regular rock and roll band), and claiming that it needs to be included here is a red herring too. After all, there's websites for that sort of thing.

So, what needs to go? That members section (and the articles for individual members who, a few excepted perhaps, are not notable), and that enormous amount of information on that stuff (I don't have a better word for it) in the text. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ with your argument regarding the exchangeability of members. AKB48 is a prime example for members being indeed more important than the group itself, with quite a few members gaining the status of national icons. Strong points can be made towards the notion that the fandom is a conglomerate of individual member`s fans rather than fans of the group itself. Also, we seem to have a strong misconception of the otaku culture here, in which the act of "oshihen-ing" (ie changing the favourite member) is rare and considered somewhat of a misconduct. In fact, the whole strategy of AKB`s media exposure is to make at least some of the members irreplaceable. We also have seen some promotional campaigns for certain new members being a failure, because the fans just didnt like them, and we have seen other members rising to prominence without a significant promotional push. As another point, Morning Musume became considerably less successful once the first prominent generations left the project. I can certainly see where you are coming from (like you could say the mere act of promoting a certain idol seems random, and then there is the whole "idols are representing an image gimmick rather than her own personality"-line of argumentation), but this is vastly theoryfinding and i dont think we should base impactful article decisions on that, and i don´t think this is supported by Wikipedia. I give you that blood-types are really not needed :). And please do not mix the whole thing up with artistic contributions. Your comparison to Bono is pretty much out of the place. We are talking about idol culture, i don´t think i have to explain why this is different. 134.102.85.184 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There are no limitations to how much information an article can include. --Moscow Connection (talk)
  • There are limitations on what a reader can comprehend. And we do have guidelines: see Wikipedia:Article size and WP:TOOBIG (this article is too big). What matters is readability. The current article is over 100k, and the "readable text" part of it takes up 80k. That's not legible by any standard. And much of that text consists of announcements and member information. It may well be that this is of incredible importance to some--to fans, I argue--but it makes for a bloated article. That's it. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Depends on the "information" you're talking about. You know this is an encyclopedia, right? Are we serious here, are we really a group of adults, using energy and valuable resources, with computers and skills and knowledge, and we are compiling a decisive history of which girl was selected to which team on some girls' group? You don't find this even a bit odd and completely useless? This isn't "knowledge", this isn't "information". No purpose is served by working on it, including it, fact checking it, organizing it, illustrating it, presenting it. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The content is encyclopedic. This is certainly "information". And, for example, when [insert a name of someone very famous here] was born is not more "knowledge" than this. I'm sure 99 percent of Wikipedia is useless to most people. Someone cares about it, someone wants people to know, someone creates a detailed article, why delete it? I don't see any reason to do it. It can't be deleted just because someone thinks it's useless. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Drmies, do you have any reliable sources for your claim that "these girls are for better or worse interchangeable"? Thank you. Leondris (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The very fact that there is next to nothing on them individually in the many articles I've looked at. Again, their own articles are summaries of the group's activities, except for a snippet here and there: notability is not inherited. If they weren't interchangeable, there'd be something to say about them besides "person X went to subgroup B and then left and became a trainee" etc. Or, in one case, "Person Y reportedly spent the night with someone". Moscowconnection, your long string of "someone..." presents no argument for inclusion. There's also people who care for which Lego blocks were found in which sets, and that's not encyclopedic. No, I'm not saying these girls are Lego blocks. And I don't just think it's useless, I'm arguing that it's useless. Your stab is as useless as me saying you just like it. I do believe that there are perfectly suitable places for this type of information; I'm just saying that Wikipedia is not one of them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe i should elaborate on that. What you are proposing is the removal of a member section of a band. Something that is not too common for a music act lemma. You base your proposal on your opinion that members are AKB48 are interchangeable and not independantly notable. Before we proceed with this certainly drastic action, you should really back that opinion up. I for one am very concerned that a wikipedia administrator is trying to ridicule the work of many editors by somewhat denying the adult status of the article`s editors (see your comment above). You see, your comments are not suited to actually improve the article (because you want to remove information that you have judged as "useless", which is only a matter of your personal taste) but to impose your personal feelings on that matter. That said, you should ask yourself if your mindset is suited for evualuating this article. As a sidenote, i find it funny, that you ask the contributors of this lemma to "not waste energy on this useless fancruft", while at the same time you seem to devote much of your personal energy for bringing up discussions that seem to be mostly influenced by personal taste and are not going to improve anyone`s life other than your personal satisfaction. 82.83.230.109 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to look at the articles I wrote, including the Featured and Good articles, to see (and compare) what I spent much of my energy on. Or at my perfectly manicured lawn. Leave my admin hat out of it: I don't use a tool here, and as Ryulong knows (in whose opinions I place some stock), my opinion is worth no more than that of any other editor--including, I suppose, impromptu created accounts and occasional IPs. And I am perfectly aware of the fact that there's a world of websites and portals out there where this is being circulated, and I'm fighting an uphill battle.

I'll tell you what's funny: this discussion started because I was asked about the fan tag, and no one here has addressed the fact that the article in its current status is pretty much illegible. It's just not a good article; it's not even a decent article. Above, Moscowconnection points to the GA status of the Chinese article. Now, my Chinese is a bit rusty, but the comparison goes awry since they're not pointing at the Chinese ABK48 article, and at any rate I don't know how rigorous they are with GA (this review is awfully short). The article under discussion is over 100k, and it's not good. AngusWoof asked me how I thought it could be better, and I told them--and I said that as a GA reviewer, and as a writer of GAs and FAs, and as someone with a certain measure of experience here. Since you're an unregistered IP editor, I can't even judge if I can assume you know what you're talking about when you judge my comments. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The size requirements are to do with readable prose. The current readable prose is nowhere near 100k or over 80k as you claim. You included reference information in your size test. Please amend by just using the readable prose. I find the article including table and lists still between the 6000 - 10000 word limit recommendation on concentration span.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.5.172 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Angus, I'm going to drop this. It was very kind of you to ask for my explanation of the tag; I appreciate that. I could have expected that my comments were not responded to, and that participants would come out of the woodwork to attack me (and my deletion nominations, which is a wholly separate matter). I didn't attack anyone's "adult status", though I think that adults have better things to do, yes. That someone would see fit to throw in my admin status (another red herring), that I could have expected too, I suppose. Still, I find it a bit sad that no one here (I'm excepting you, since I see many good-sense remarks from you on this page in other discussions) even wants to address the point, which is about legibility and content. Good luck with it, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Uh-oh, Drmies, your bias is showing again. What do you mean with "regular rock and roll band" and "some girls' group"? In other words, AKB48 members are not "notable" because they are well behaved, well educated, healthy, young females, and not some crusty old members of some "indie" or "alternative" band.Nilbuk (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The team information and election rank results are in context with the article so it is not irrelevant to anyone who has bothered to read it, fan or not. The ages of members may be complimentary but it isn't excessive. The relative age of current members is also mentioned in the article so the actual ages are there for a reader if they are interested. If you want to remove something because the article is too big remove the Other media work section. A lot of it is already mentioned in the discography page so it can be moved there and just rename it "discography and other media". Members mentioned in the history section are there because they are part of a notable event. Graduations are mentioned in former members so it should be removed/moved if it is trivial and not notable for the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.5.172 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You mentioned the List of former members of AKB48, but it is being nominated for deletion. It if is deleted, it will be quite the opposite — I will add all the info it has back to this article. By the way, AKB48 timeline has been deleted in spite of the fact that there wasn't any consensus for it. If the decision stands, I will carefully add everything that was moved to the timeline back to this article. (But I will be out of Wikipedia for a while, I hope no more terrible things will happen...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

History trimming suggestions

While Drmies may seem to have a bias against the J-idol industry and I believe he should do better not to give that impression as it detracts from his point, he **does** have a point. This article is particularly difficult to read. I thought, as a fan, I could make some suggestions as a compromise. In my userspace I have created two identical versions of the history section: one with what I think should be removed stricken out so it can still be read and one with what I think should be removed actually removed. What is left should obviously be edited to counter the removal of information and reflect subsequent additions. There are also certain problems with the prose and missing information.

Again, I must stress that I am a fan and believe this group and their activities are very notable but the history section is far too detailed. The sales figures can be moved to the discography section if needed, the minor graduation details can be moved to former members, where needed, and the various minor accolades should be moved to an accolades section, again, where needed.

I also believe there should be a concepts or regular events section should be created to explain things like the election, and RPS contests, rather than repeatedly explain them in during their history essay. I don't expect this edit to fly through, I expect details to be debated and worked out with other editors. I just hope something is done to fix this article. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no more bias against this industry than against any other industry. It should be obvious to anyone who has seen as many Wikipedia articles as I have that J-pop/K-pop articles suffer more than any other type of article from being bloated by fans with every single bit of information. Anyone with some experience, fan or hater or whatever, can see that, and the quality of those articles is, as a result, simply atrocious. I think it is also clear that there are concerted efforts to produce as many articles as possible on the same blueprint, with the same meager sources (usually all sources are J/K-pop portals and other fan sites), and written in the same manner, using the language of the industry (comeback, pre-formation, etc.). But I quit looking at them, and consider the entire area just to be beyond help, the good faith of editors such as you notwithstanding. There's another thing you can do to put these articles to the test: nominate them for WP:GA and see what happens. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggested edits. I agree with leaving the sales figures to the discography section and the minor graduations to the former members (or regular members) section, although many of the record setting ones can be kept (the ones that actually break national records, Guinness World Records, or win major awards, not the personal bests for the group since it's clear from the discography they've had streaks of number one singles). Major graduations can just be summarized to actual graduation date or month instead of announcement of intent, announcement of date, last major concert, ceremony, post-ceremony appearance, handshake out the door, unless any of those pre and post events impact the group like Atsuko Maeda. Similarly singles can just be summarized to date released, with all the detailed promotional stuff (teasers, trailers, events, music video, center announcements, reception) going to the individual single articles. The RPS and general elections should already be explained in the Membership section. I've been tweaking some of the major members' wikipedia articles to show their progressions in the group. It also shows their positions after those elections and tournaments.
Ugh, don't get me started on senbatsu. That's such an annoying in-house term. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I am worried you are creating a set of unique unwritten guidelines for this articles history section which are not needed. If you play Drmies game and look at WP:GA articles about bands with history sections (Big_Bang_(South_Korean_band), Supercell_(band), Aerosmith), they contain fair amounts of information for music releases, media appearances, concerts, awards and events involving individual members comparable to the information you want to delete. The history section for this article is more in need of verifiable sources and copy editing rather then trimming. I believe the only consensus is moving graduation information to the former members section. 60.226.5.172 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Detailing concert tours and appearances that are outside the group's usual theater performances, awards, and special events are all good and not a unique guideline; I even summarized the 2013 general election details in a paragraph. But even in the Big Bang articles, you notice when they detail the singles they focus on the release, the results and the impact, listing sales figures when it's a major milestone (gold/plat/million, records outside their home country such as Japan and US charts). There isn't much "it sold more than the last release which was 'title' with 'X00,000 copies' but less than their best record" verbiage; they aren't describing teaser videos, standard "comeback" (ok sorry, not K-pop) events like promotional album versions, handshakes or appearances on their own weekly video programs and television shows, most of which belong in the single's article. I agree more writing and sources would help so it isn't just a rehash of the discography table, which makes the article dry with chart peak positions and sales. I'm not sure what you mean by needs more copy editing as making the tone neutral and fixing the grammar is one of the reasons I got invested in this article in the first place. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Label

I'm trying to standardize the label for the AKB48 singles for the infobox; should it be listed as:

  • You, Be Cool! / King
  • You! Be Cool / King

Note that "Records" should not be listed per the template rules. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed it is the first punctuation version on the second album. If King has changed their marketing as to not have the "You, Be Cool!" sub-label anymore, please let everyone know when that happens and adjust the more recent singles and albums appropriately. It is a pink heart icon that says "You, Be Cool!" as it shows on their second album. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

34th single title is 76 characters long!

Any ideas on how to abbreviate this for the next AKB48 created article per the somewhat defunct Wikipedia:Long_titles? For instance, Robinson Crusoe has an extremely long original title of 69 words. Can we shorten this to "Suzukake no Ki no Michi" or "Suzukaze"? -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • (I've finished with article for now.) My point was that it was usually better not to think too much. If we started a discussion, it would only complicate things. The debate could go for years, while the article is needed now. The single is called ... whatever it is called ..., we created the article at its title. If something is wrong, someone will eventually come and tell us. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a joke spreaded out in Japan about the abbreviation of the "76-letter long" title to be.
SUZUkake no
KI no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shi
MAttara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokuna
RI ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no
YAya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono
This joke was reported by some news media, and Suzuki Mariya, a member of SNH48, and a concurrent member of AKB48 Team B, herself reacted to this joke on her Twitter account.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. I find it a little bit dangerous to talk about this cause someone may come and move the article to "Suzuki Mariya". :)
  2. Could you please look at the article?
    I think the way I translated the title is okay. Is it? It is not word-exact, but I think the most imporant thing is to make it clear and natural-sounding.
  3. And, by the way, I thought about asking you to look at some articles about AKB48 releases and maybe correct the descriptions of bonuses that came with them. (Yes, I've been thinking about asking you cause you are the only person in the English Wikipedia who is knowledgeable about AKB48.)
    Like, for example, I don't know if a person who's buying a theater edition in the theater can choose which photo he gets. When you buy other versions, they are sealed and you don't know what's inside. (Since I've never been to the theater and I'm not on any forums lately, I don't know and can't ask / don't want to bother anyone with that.)
    Also, the people in the Japanese Wikipedia for some reason consider the limited and regular versions as one version, while they have different catalog numbers and listed separately on the King Records site. Why? Is it correct?
    Also, maybe there should be a few sentences somewhere explaining how a person registers for a handshake event and how you participate in the lottery for theater tickets. I can do it myself but I may make some mistakes.
    (Now I wrote it and I see that the articles are a mess and I'm sure there are many mistakes in the way editions and bonuses are described. There's too much work, so just keep it in mind while browsing. But if you can explain to me about the theater editions, please do. I will then come up with a sentence about it and just paste it everywhere.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
According to "AKB48SHOW!" blog, it was announced by Jurina Matsui that the official abbreviation would be Suzukake Nanchara (鈴懸なんちゃら, lit. Platanus blah-blah-blah) during the taping of "Music Japan".(source available only in Japanese) However, the source also indicates that the abbreviation should not be used in written form, but only limited to verbal expression.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
All these abbreviations (I mean, like "Kimichari", etc.) are just for fans. So the article should stay where it is now. The title is good. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The full title can stay in the lead and the track list. Its short form can be noted in the article with the source you mentioned, as it's officially labelled and not a fan generated nickname, but it doesn't have to be used unless the song title needs to be mentioned multiple times in the same paragraph and we can't get around it with the usual "single" or "title track" or "music video" phrasing. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
But I think the article shouldn't be renamed under any curcumstances. Especially since it set a record for the longest article title in the English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Titles. And what this discussion is doing is creating problems where there are none.
By the way, I'm also against using it anywhere to refer to the single. Cause as WCIDFS said, it actually means "Platanus blah-blah-blah". It sounds strange and very unofficial. These nicknames are invented by either fans of group members just for fun. I would use something like ""Suzukake ..." or "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de ..." if I need to mention the title somewhere.
But surely, we can add a section about the nicknames in the article about the single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions on RPS tournament detail

Are there some news articles that explain the RPS tournament format? Are there qualifications on who can participate and who gets a bye in the early rounds?

Also, once the round of 16 begins, how are the final rankings determined? Do players who lose in the round of 16 (placed 9-16) play each other for the next highest ranking? Same question for 5-8 for quarterfinals, 3-4 for semifinals. In 2013 they ranked the members 1-16. In 2012, they rank 1-8 and lump 9-16 together, in 2011 they rank 1-8 and lump 9-16 together; and in 2010 they rank 1-16.

The rules may differ each year so it would help for it to be detailed in each of the RPS related singles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi! I thought it might be rude not to reply, so I'm going to answer this question even though I dont know. :) You see, it is indeed a single-elimination tournament as you wrote in the article. So I have no idea why the results are like this: [1] (with exact places). But I didn't watch the tournament this time, so I don't know. I thought last year there was a winner, a runner-up, semifinalists, quarterfinalists, etc. (And there were also some preliminary/qualification fights between trainees, held earlier.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, nice! We just need references for the consolation final and lottery selections that aren't the wiki page itself (or stage48 wiki), then we can put that in. Thanks for digging that up! -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I don't think I will be able to participate. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The main reason is that it would be a titanic work to write about everything, to find a source about every single thing. And the Japanese Wikipedia is not very good at referencing, to say the least. So it would take ages to find out where they took the info from... Maybe if some Japanese editor helped, but... --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should invite people from Stage48 and other forums to register in Wikipedia... There are too few people here to write the articles properly... Maybe they don't know they can register... --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono#Requested move 02 January 2014.

The nominator's statement is completely untrue. But I'm afraid the article will be moved to the colloqual title if we don't do something. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving the article AKB48. It is not a substitute wikiproject page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Member list

I have completely reformatted the member list on this and the other related group articles. It is not relevant to provide the results of the popularity polls on Wikipedia per WP:NOTIINFO. I have also removed the prefectures of birth from the lists as it is not relevant, either. Also, as this is the English Wikipedia, the members' names should be listed in alphabetical order and not the order based on the Japanese Gojuon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody agreed on that? We are talking about the event, that is thoroughly featured in japanese media, with up 2 millions votes per election and up to 32% tv rating. Also, before you do such dramatic changes, please discuss it before. It is not that we are bloating the article with megabytes of useless information, anyway. I reverted the member table to its old format, but i agree on removal of birthplaces. About the ordering, who cares? It is the ordering, /members.php uses. Rka001 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
You are most likely referring to "Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." - I doubt this is the case here: First, it is not excessive - we are merely adding 5 columns to a table. Then, the tables look much more neat and readable than the pure listing Ryulong was proposing. 134.102.85.184 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (Rka001, not logged in).
I do not see any sources for the "sousenkyo" results in your version of the article. And most of the members seem to either not have a ranking so it seems pointless to turn the list of members into a table with 5 columns for which only it seems is only relevant for less than half of the band's current line up. It is not particularly relevant to provide such an intensive level of detail on a popularity contest of this sort. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't even bother with listing all of the results of every vote. They just have the most recent. And, the official website (what I assume you mean by "/members.php") uses the gojuon ordering because it's in Japanese. This is the English Wikipedia and there is no reason to use a Japanese ordering system.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
As i said, i do not care about the ordering system. i guess the japanese ordering was maintained to offer quick comparability to members.php. I also agree on removing the prefectures (i can do that today after lab). About the relevancy of sousenkyo results, it is actually the most important event for the group, and more importantly one of the very few events that are relevant to the public audience. As already said, millions of votes and national sport-event like tv ratings. Of course, the first sousenkyo was irrelevant compared to what it is now, but with that argument, you could remove the entire early history sections, because nobody cared at that time. So, what is gained by removing the results? Basically, nothing. The section becomes just a list of names nobody is going to use or find interesting. Also, the lists just look plain ugly AND it doesnt even save space. The addition of the sousenkyo results at least offers additional information about the essentiality of individual members. So, i cant really see any use in removing that information. It is the reflection of the business model.
I can look up references, but i always thought such things could be kept bona fide, because these things are quite obviously public available information.
Also, please refrain from turning this into an edit war. The member's table has been like that for years. Let us first await other contributor`s opinions. This is not a case of who is right or wrong, but how we apply wiki guidelines. You have your opinion, which i respect, but others may think differently about it. Since you are proposing a major change, let us first stay with the initial state, and later change to your version, if your opinion is valid for everyone. But you basically do a "Take it or leave it"-proposal, which is not too nice. Rka001 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Japanese Wikipedia article does not lists up the most recent ranking, but the highest one which each member attained.
  2. Japanese Wikipedia has the article of every single Sosenkyo, none of which English one exists.
  3. Gojuon listings have been used as their official website does, and no reliable English-written source of listings being provided.
  4. Information about birth day and year provides information about eligibility to certain TV and radio programs, particularly when age-limits kick in. (e.g. "AKB48's All Night Nippon", "Listen -Live 4 Life-", or like "NHK Kohaku Uta Gassen" for 2013, when AKB48 was assigned late-night performance time)
---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The voting results still need to be sourced and even then they most definitely fail WP:NOTIINFO. And the section on the members should just be their names. That's how every other pop vocal group's page is set up. Simply because AKB48's business model leads to the purchases of millions of copies of singles (there are plenty of stories online where people buy hundreds if not thousands of copies of the election CDs just to buy votes) does not mean this Wikipedia article should provide this information. Perhaps it might be of some use to make a List of AKB48 members page and put the results there and allow this article to provide the most basic information about who is in the band presently.
And this is the English language version of Wikipedia so there is no reason to use a Japanese ordering system. There is no need for a source on what order the members' names are listed in. That's just ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to get unfriendly. You are basically just repeating arguments we have every now and then. First, AKB48 is very different to pop vocal groups, and cant be dealt with applying standard procedures (if there are any at all). We have already debated to design an extra article about the member section, and we basically agreed to do so, but nobody has been doing it so far. It is a lot of work (we discussed to merge it with "former members".) Feel free to help us in that respect. Until then, we all felt that the sousenkyo rankings are valid and important information that needed to be included due to the sheer relevancy of them. Even international media does provide coverage, for example Spiegel Online, a super relevant German magazine and news supplier, reported about sousenkyo 2012 and the battle between Oshima and Atsuko. Could you please clarify how this article would become better without ranking information? We do not save space, as the few extra columns do not inflate the article that much, and the listings are plain ugly. I also explained why the rankings are relevant informations. Rka001 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
In terms of Sosenkyo, I do not find any reliable source in English, but official blog articles in Japanese.
1st edition for 13th single in 2009, 2nd for 17th single in 2010, 3rd for 22nd single in 2011, 4th for 27th single in 2012, and 5th for 32nd single in 2013.
Everyone seems to understand that Ryulong, you do not care about Japanese ordering, but what is most appropriate? There are some possible ideas, alphabetical, generation (=length of time with the group), age, latest Sosenkyo ranking, etc. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've switched to the alphabetical ordering. Any other ordering is not encyclopedic. And reliable sources need not be in English. They just need to exist. And the ranking results are not necessary to understand who is and is not in the band which is what the members section of this article should be about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

For english resources, we might use tokyohive. As for Ryulong*s opinion, other articles about pop acts just give names, please refer to Morning Musume, Momoiro Clover Z, Exile (Japanese band). Imho, all these japanese idol bands are pretty special in their compositions and market appeal strategies, so we cant just treat them like Metallica or Depeche Mode. My opinion: Keep rankings, remove birthplaces, no passion about ordering. Rka001 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No. We should treat them like the Spice Girls and N'Sync because there's nothing that makes them special that Wikipedia says they should be treated any differently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the addition of the actual ages, however, who is going to curate them? Can we have a bot doing it?
I need to see a wiki guideline that totally prevents us to present the data as we do. AKB is of course special: they are idols, not singers; they are many; they are differently popular. Wiki work is also about being creative and open minded, when there is the need to, as long as you are staying within the general guidelines. With that argument, you would need to remove all the extra information from the other three group lemmas i've given, and for example also the make up information from Kiss (band) Feel free to do so, but Wiki would be a worse place afterwards.Rka001 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
They can be treated differently, as Guiness World Records recognized them as "The largest pop group", so the presentation of its members could be different from any other groups.---What can I do for someone?- (talk)
I attached the sousenkyo references to the first member table. However, this table is now spatially inflated. Which sucks. A lot. Any other idea? Like putting them into the header text?Rka001 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Rka001, I have used Template:Birth date and age rather than Template:Birth date, which automatically calculates the age based on the year, month, and day parameters.
Now, saying that they should be treated differently because they are "idols" or because they have been recognized as the "largest pop group" (by number of members, not by impact) by Guinness does not mean shit, to be frank. There is no reason any musical group should be treated differently from any other musical group on Wikipedia. Now, I've already updated Momoclo's page to remove the table and make things more streamlined (you do not need a block of the color to tell people what color they wear). And for Kiss, their makeup is their signature and it's reliably sourced and not indiscriminate information or statistics. You all need to remember that Wikipedia is a free (to access) encyclopedia and not a compendium of which member of AKB48 received the most votes in their annual moneymaking scheme. This page should be an easily accessible introduction to what AKB48 is and that introduction does not need to include the vote results.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, there should just be a separate article on the voting results, such that all of the members are listed together rather than split apart into the four teams and so the data can be sorted (there's a sortable table option somewhere on Help:Tables).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I would agree to have that article (and our line of reasoning was to merge it with former members), and just leave a link in the main article, thereby totally removing the lists from the main article. One just would need to add extra fields "current team", "status" (active, retired) and possibly also info about "years active" or "'generation'". But this would be an aweful lot of work. You know, i am not insisting to have everything in the main article - i am insisting to not remove the ranking info from wikipedia entirely. Anyway, thanks for improving the article! 134.102.85.184 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Here are my opinions on this; hopefully it's not too redundant with my comments from last time.
  • The list can be alpha order or goujon order. The main advantage of goujon is that one can look up the members on the official site and match one-to-one to see who's new on the team.
  • Keep birthdays (birth date and age) as with the convention for idol groups. Remove age when member retires.
  • Home prefectures I'm on the fence. Sports rosters list colleges and hometowns because that's where the athlete trained before they went pro.
  • Remove ranking history, move to members article. Create separate article for elections.
  • Add generation (13th, etc.) and year joined. This gives the reader an idea how long they have been with the group. And the generation count has been there since the beginning.

-AngusWOOF (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As i said, i support the idea of having new main articles for members (and possible one (id prefer having only one for all five events) for Sousenkyo, too). In fact my ideal situation would be a main article with a mere link to "main article: List of AKB48 members", but until we have them, we should not remove any useful/relevant information from the main page. Because elections results are basically representing the whole idea behind AKB48, which is a race for popularity between members. As for the prefectures, as long as 85% of the girls have tokyo associated with them, i cant see the useful information from it. It would be more interesting to have real birthplaces instead of prefectures, perhaps. Maybe we should also use "Year entered" instead of "generation", because - you know - there are guys being very offended by such an amount of fan-lingo.^^ I once tried to do a combined table, but its really awful, especially with looking up all the needed references. RKa001134.102.85.184 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Why should age cease from mattering when they're no longer in the group?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There's little value in listing their current age once they're out of the group as with defunct boy bands/girl groups; that would be as trivial as "where are they now" with most of the members being in their 20s and would have to be adjusted when they die. But it also depends on whether a search for that person's name will redirect to the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
{{death date and age}} though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree to remove the tables. I reverted. I think the tables should stay until editors reach a consensus here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I removed something important. I didn't actually look at the article and didn't see that the tables were back. I will add the sources for election results back now. I will add them so that they don't make the tables bigger. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The only table removed was the kenkyusei one (no votes, why bother) but you all need to realize that the massive tables and vote results are only important from the perspective of the fans. As someone who couldn't give two shits about the band, I don't see them as important for understanding the band from a layman's perspective.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Also the only content removed is the prefecture of birth because it's not relevant here really. No one needs to know that 50% of the girls are from Chiba or Kanagawa, as it seemed when I first removed the information two weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And my final thought for now is that it is really unprofessional to combine 5 different sources into one referenced citation. You never know when you might need to refer to one part instead of the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
First, i am very cool with the state of the section now. As Ryulong stated, the prefecture didnt add anything useful imho. The next step would be the out-sourcing of the member list to an extra article (but with extra information and merging with List of former AKB48 members. I could help with that, but i will never start that on my own^^ Now, about the things that might matter to fans or non-fans. One could very well argue about how detailed the article is (especially the expanded history section). However, i wholeheartedly believe that senbatsu sousenkyo is one of the very few 48g related events that is of relevance to the Japanese public. It has been broadcasted live since 2012 on Fuji during golden hour. 2012's live broadcast got around 18% average rating, in 2013 the rating peaked at 32%. 32% - numbers only worldcup finals reach. Sports is a good comparison, there are people not interested in - say - soccer, but they do watch important matches from time to time. The same is true for sousenkyo. Japan does care. It is a major entame event. Team shuffle dramas, drafts or handshake events - that is tailor-made for otakus. Sousenkyo is not. There are plenty of newspapers with prediction articles, as well as commentary afterwards. The only things that are of similar relevance are graduations of the big members and major scandals. Heck, even german newspapers like Spiegel Online, which is arguably the most relevant news outlet there, reported about sousenkyo in 2012. That said, i would heavily insist on retaining information about sousenkyo. Somewhere on wikipedia. If somebody is willing to write a new lemma, i am supportive. But don't cut it. 82.83.235.168 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection Stop blindly reverting to what you think is the better version and look at the damn discussion here. People agree that prefectures aren't important. Also, you keep removing corrections I made to include the Hepburn romanization, converting all listed dates of birth to {{birth date and age}}, and correcting fucked up entries (there's an "Owada" when there should be an "Ōwada" and you shouldn't use the Hepburn form in the first parameter if there's an actual common spelling of the name, e.g. Yuko Oshima and not "Yūko Ōshima"). You are currently the only one who thinks this version isn't appropriate when the discussion here says otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What if we a) put the election references to a section leads (eg "election results, please refer to 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013" with added links.") and b) if we remove the romanized version of the names? Just remove space - you see, currently it reads a little bit redundant (Yuko Oshima, kanji Oshima Yuko) -> Why not just "kanji, oshima yuko"? I believe, that is called the hepburn romanization. Leondris (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "B" because in several instances the member's name is more commonly written differently than how the Hepburn romanization states it should be. And we are providing false information to our readers if we do not give the Japanese ordering of the name as well as the Western ordering.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection continues to refuse to engage in discussion here further and continues to revert to the older more broken version of the section simply because there are no prefectures and there is no table for the Kenkyusei members. Moscow Connection, please stop reverting and participate in discussion here beyond the single sentence you posted last night.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you discuss first and then make the changes. You are the one who came and changed the status quo. Your edits have been reverted, they look awful. You are trying to put them in by force. Now discuss. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have discussed them and people like them. The status quo is that this page looks like a fan page rather than a serious encyclopedic article. And you are the only one who thinks that it looks awful. The IP editor above, who constantly affirms that he is Rka001, thinks this current state is better than it was before. And most of the editors here realize that the format that you so adore isn't working. If you want to make an AKB48 fan page, as it certainly looks like this is turning into, don't do it on Wikipedia. This is a serious project. I've not removed the tables (other than the one for the kenkyusei because it serves no purpose when they have no votes and it's just a list of them). I've done so many other fixes to the information presented here that it outweighs your desire for it to be pretty. What it needs to be is presented in a way that people can actually read it and know what it says.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that keeping the election table on the main article provides an overview on how long the members have been with a "48" group. Granted there are some that have been there earlier than 2009, some who didn't participate in elections (as noted with light grey N/A) or transferred into AKB48 proper later. That can be detailed in the members article and the individual article where notable. All the senior members seem to have notable articles anyways. I agree the Kenkyusei does not need a history chart. It can be mentioned that they joined in (month) 2013. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC), updated 15:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Member lists in the Japanese Wikipedia

I didn't want to say anything but since everyone is here on this talk page right now...

I just want to inform you that something terrible happened in the Japanese Wikipedia. They implemented a so-called "local rule" for AKB48-related articles that prohibits adding member lists for B-sides into articles about AKB48's singles. It also says to order the remaining list (for the title track) alphabetically and not by teams. IP editors have tried to put the lists back, but they are being reverted. I personally think that the articles are ruined and that the Japanese Wikipedia has became absolutely useless for anyone who wants to browse through AKB48's releases.

The proposal that resulted in the rule had remained practically unnoticed or ignored. I wonder why. There were just 2–3 editors, and they decided everything for everyone. I didn't notice it too.

Actually, it's not like they deleted the info from Wikipedia, they moved it all into the monstrous List of AKB48-related songs. The list is very long and completely unusable. (I think some people like to make very long lists for everything. This is especially true for the Japanese Wikipedia.)

That's just for your information. I am thinking about proposing to allow the lists back into the articles and to rearrange them as before, exactly as in the CD booklets. But it won't be now. Now I am not going to do anything. It would be nice if someone with a better knowledge of Japanese offers help in composing the proposal. I think they just made a mistake and if it were in English it would be possible for me to convince them reconsider. That's all. Just in case someone some day decides to save the Japanese Wikipedia, here are all the necessary links:

This is of no importance to the English Wikipedia's AKB48 article. Please refrain from using this page as a forum for discussing the band or related aspects. This page is only for improving the article here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is one Wikipedia. I am discussing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. I care about other languages too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, there is not "one Wikipedia". This is the English Wikipedia and what happens on the Japanese Wikipedia is of no importance to the English Wikipedia. If you want to discuss inter-project issues, that is what meta: is for. This page is also not for coordinating discussion on every article relating to AKB48. This page is solely for discussing the article on AKB48. You keep misusing this page and you need to learn how things are done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving member list to its own article

Hi, i decided to write a new article "List of members of AKB48". It does not include former members (referencing is way too difficult). It will include a lede, in which i try to shortly explain AKB's structure. Ill also include a section about sousenkyo. What i do need, is a sortable table with Name - Birthday - Team - Debut year (or Generation, but id prefer the other one) - Sousenkyo positions - Remarks and anything you want to have included. It is also possible to break down senbatsu sousenkyo positions away from the main table and just give lists of the top 16 members (or 21 for the first two elections) in table form. We could remove all the blanks from the table, then. Any ideas/proposals? Rka001 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be at List of AKB48 members not List of members of AKB48. Also, there should be use of the wikitable sortable option which I believe is listed at Help:Tables.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait. If you do it, people will delete the list from here. I've thought about it and I thought it should be a roster template that we could use here in this article. We already have a list of former members of AKB48, we don't need another one. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why not simply rename the list of former members into a list of members? At least, we won't have to worry about someone deleting it. (Another option would be that you create this new member list and then we merge the list of former members into it.)
Okay, who cares, create the list if you want and I will create the template. I will try to create something compact. 3 articles are better than one. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't need two lists. If it gets its own article it gets deleted from here. That's the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No. I don't agree. And I'm not going to create an article. If you think we don't need two articles, just add the list of current members into the List of former members. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The AKB48 template already has the current roster. If you want to change List of former AKB48 members to include the current ones, I would then shorten the main article list to a simple listing: (Team A: person1, person2, etc. Team K: person15, person16,) and add {{Main|List of AKB48 members}} Ideas on to organize it from there are already discussed on that talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I will agree to shorten the list in the main article to a simple listing if the current detailed list is moved to the list of former members.
By the way, I liked the NBA rosters you showed me a year or so ago, and I think we can make all the lists more compact by creating something like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my plan was to have two links in the main article: List of AKB members and List of former AKB members. The next step, and the final product, would be the merging of both lists into List of AKB48 members. However, we are going to research a lot of references for graduation and debut dates (unless we are accepting fan wikis as reliable sources). Proper rebuilding of Former members will be a horrible amount of work, i can tell you. And sorry to dissappoint, but my intention was to totally remove any member lists from the main article. Because, lists like that will always result in ppl coming by and doing undesired stuff with the tables. We already had that. We could leave pure lists of members in the main, but i really hate having lists of names without additional info. They are uglier than tables and people will not care (unless there is additional stuff they can get from tables). Just my opinion though.Rka001 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The member list in this article doesn't have to be ugly. It can be written in a smaller font. Look: Template:Los Angeles Lakers roster. And it can be hidden under spoilers. If you allow me, I will experiment with something like this. Then we will be able to create neater templates/tables, for the list of former members too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An example would like like this (it will show up at the bottom of this page - i dunno why!). Is it possible to have the sorting do it for last name (and/or the japanese ordering, if desired)? The remark column is for stuff like captain/former captain/transferred to/from or later, when we merge both articles, also for graduation informations. Then we might have "Years active" column, too. I am not going to include references for the debut dates. Feel free to search the official blog. I am not too thrilled with the debut column. We could really add the generation instead (is that already fancruft?), because it makes sorting easier. Currently, i cant include more detailed debut dates without breaking the sorting (i believe)Rka001 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, currently the election ranking, numerical sorting is broken. Dunno why -.-Rka001 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Name
Birth date 		Team Debut
(Generation) 		Election rank Remark
1[1] 2[2] 3[3] 4[4] 5[5]
Reina Fujie (藤江 れいな, Fujie Reina)
(1994-02-01) February 1, 1994 (age 30) 		B 2007 (4) — 33 40 40 32
Miori Ichikawa (市川 美織, Ichikawa Miori)
(1994-02-12) February 12, 1994 (age 30) 		B 2010 (10) 39 58 57
Haruka Ishida (石田 晴香, Ishida Haruka)
(1993-12-02) December 2, 1993 (age 30) 		B 2007 (5) — 27 — 50 46
Misaki Iwasa (岩佐 美咲, Iwasa Misaki)
(1995-01-30) January 30, 1995 (age 29) 		B 2008 (7) — 33 56 Solo Career
Yuki Kashiwagi (柏木 由紀, Kashiwagi Yuki)
(1991-07-15) July 15, 1991 (age 33) 		B 2006 (3) 9 8 3 3 4 Former Captain Team B, Solo Career, Subgroup: French Kiss
Rie Kitahara (北原 里英, Kitahara Rie)
(1991-06-24) June 24, 1991 (age 33) 		K 2007 (5) 13 16 13 13 21 Subgroup: Not Yet
Yuko Oshima (大島 優子, Ōshima Yūko)
(1988-10-17) October 17, 1988 (age 36) 		K 2006 (2) 2 1 2 1 2 Captain Team K, Subgroup Not Yet
There are lots of sorting options and what to show for active members, but it depends on whether you still want a two-column presentation for the roster. Let's get consensus on what should be shown on the main article first, further discussion can be done on the members talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it. The current members should be divided by teams. And a separate article will allow some space for prefectures.
I agree with AngusWOOF, there are many options and it is a bit pointless to discuss all of them now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You can just rename the list of former members of AKB48 to List of AKB48 members, copy all the tables from this article into it, and experiment there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to discuss everything up in front. If you really want to create another page for AKB48 members, create it. In this case anyone will be able to improve it or move it (or redirect it :D) later. If we start to discuss all our future steps now, it will be the same situation as in the Japanese Wikipedia (see below) when 2 people created some sort of rules that prevent other people from changing anything. Just do it. If I see it and think that the tables are ugly, I will come with my roster ideas. Like, think, there is already the threat of everyone agreeing to your version of the table, and that if I later come and say that the members absolutely must be ordered by teams (and they do, just like on the official site), someone will start reverting me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Record sales

About the recent addition of Ryulong, this is not limited to the sousenkyo single. It is quite common knowlegde, that 48G sales are significantly boosted by gimmicks (predominantly voting tickets (senkyo and request hour), handshake tickets, different versions with different member pictures), so i wont emphasize it too much here. It is also widely accepted, that the guys who are buying hundreds and thousands of singles are actually selling the tickets on the secondary market. The gimmick strategy is not limited to 48G, though. EXILE's only million seller since forever did that well because the singles were coming with concert tickets. So, if you find references for that, i would be happy to have the current statement ("only sousenkyo single is boosted by gimmicks") adjusted to the real state. Rka001 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Browsing through the references, directly the first source states, that handshake lotteries also boost sales. So, maybe we expand that section? It is also not a real controversy, afaik this is just merely accepted by everybody. Rka001 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing references. WP:Citation overkill is not a guideline or policy so it does not need to be used. You only seem to want to use it to hide the fact that there are so many references. As this band is Japanese in origin, it makes sense that some of the citations will not be in English. And I see nothing about the Japan Times that says it is a "biased opinion". Do not remove or refactor the references, again, please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The guy at Japan Times said, senbatsu sousenkyo gets "too much attention (when it deserves none at all."). If this is not biased opinion article, we can also use Mirror and Sun articles. Your other sources are way better and more or less neutral. The japanese reference is yellow press, and merely states about a broken relationship. Actually, i do not want to hide anything. In fact, i like that this is covered now in the article, because AKB's gimmick policy is worth to mention. And i daresay that my wording vastly improved your original sentence, correct? However, i think 7 references are way over the top. People buy more than one single. And now? If your point is that AKB fans are otakus who may act batshit crazy (which i totally agree with!), than that point is already taken without using biased opinion articles and yellow press. What is the purpose of having so many citations then? None of the articles state that the majority of the multibuyers put the votes on yahoo, which is a well known fact. But press does not report that because it takes away the dingy sensation, right? Please do not crusade. Citation overkill is btw a very good essay. We are not obliged to follow it, but we could. Don't you think? Rka001 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The rest of the article reads like a report. You just pick one god damn sentence out of it that casts a bad light on the group and you throw it out. That's ridiculous. And maybe the Japanese source isn't the best, but it still says that someone bought over 400 copies of the CD and that's what's being referenced. And those are all the citations I could find that weren't from Sankaku Complex about people buying hundreds if not thousands of copies of the singles to get votes or handshakes or whatever. I didn't find any references about stuff being sold on Yahoo. And Citation Overkill is pointless. If there are 7 references there are 7 references and it makes no sense to combine them into a single reference to hide the fact that there are seven things being cited. Adding this level of critical commentary to the article will actually make it appear less than a fan page praising the group and provides an alternate point of view. It's just a fucking band after all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As i said, everybody knows the votes are going to yahoo. You just have to take a look when its sousenkyo time. It is just not reported in the western media, because it takes away the sensational feeling. That is why i am not putting it into the sentence, it is not sourcable, but still its valid and correct information. Just ask around. But anyway, yup, a single sentence may turn a resource into a biased one, as happening here. We also do not need it, because we have better ones. As we agree that the japanese source isnt the best, we do agree that there are way better ones you dig up, correct? And please watch your language. Thank you. As for the content, i think my wording is better than your original one, because it does not cherry pick, and my way to merge citations improve the readibility, and the removal of two references is justified by guidelines. Until you convince me, or there is a different consensus, ill stick to my version. Rka001 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never been arguing over the text that accompanies the references. The sources do not have to be pruned because you think that a single sentence in the article shows a bias nor do they need to be consolidated per some essay to hide their numbers. That is my only issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, why do you think your version is better? Rka001 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The references are valid, despite your opinions about them. And there is no need to follow WP:Citation overkill, because I feel it is an attempt to avoid having negative content and thereby not keep in line with WP:NPOV.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree this is not a controversy and it should be moved to either Concept or Reception. The idea is actually very highly praised by music industry professionals. But Exile's million seller single with 17 versions was criticized. Source: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact it affects the record charts is controversial.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not controversial. Pop music is an industry. It must sell, it's what it is meant to do. AKB48 won't be stripped on all their 1st places in charts for unfair competition methods, it's not Olympic Games. The paragraph should be rephrased to say "Various sources, especially in the music industry, have praised AKB48 for significantly boosting their record sales..." I believe there are already sources that praise them in the article. If you want more, search Billboard.com. (Or at least, change the sentence to say that some sources criticize while music industry professionals praise them.) But Billboard is a more reliable source for everything music-related than some random newspapers. (By the way, I see no overcitation problems. The more, the better.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just nonsense, Rka001. Your version is not justified by any guidelines nor is it more readable. I'm not going to keep fighting you over the Japan Times or the Japanese language reference because you won't listen to reason. But I will not allow you to consolidate those remaining references into a single citation. There is no difference in the ability to read the sentence whether there is one or five citations added to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just discovered that the reference from Japan Times that I put into this section is already featured elsewhere on the article. This is really hypocritical of you, Rka001.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i really didnt recognize it. Like you didnt recognize your first source was already used in the article. Whatever. I actually do not have that much passion to discuss whether there are 7 or 2 numbers attached to a sentence, lol. I still disagree with it (because your motivation to put that many references of varying quality was actually to put the band in a bad light - dont deny it, i am cool with it), but in the end nobody is going to care anyway. Rka001 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What's this about votes going to Yahoo? Can someone elaborate? And should that be expanded upon in the article? There can be details in the article about fans who have bought an extraordinary number of copies, maybe the biggest number, as with lottery ticket history. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just visit yahoo auctions before sousenkyo or request hour, you can buy them in badges for around 6-8 USD per voting code (sousenkyo), and 2-3 USD (Request hour), respectively - there are hundreds of offers. I know, because i actually have bought voting codes from yahoo myself. Or read fan forums, many members have fans who are organizing vote pools - for example, last year a large chinese fan forum collected money and allegedly bought several thousands votes for Sashihara. Similar (but with less than 1000 copies) was done by chinese fans for Miyazawa. With last year's theater edition (containing both handshake and voting tix), guys were selling pics and codes, while keeping the handshake tickets for themselves. I mean, if your point is that this whole vote buying thing is pretty crazy, then its still pretty crazy - it doesnt actually matter how many cds are bought - people are willing to buy more than one copy, because - lets face it - the musical content actually does not count compared to the gimmicks. CD sales are basically ticket sales. Thats it. Everybody knows that, and nobody cares. Its accepted. People want to meet their idols, and for that they buy CDs. Case closed. Just like EXILE's only million seller in a decade or so was coming with a concert ticket. Nobody actually cared enough.
So, you will find lots of people buying some dozens, or in rare cases, maybe even some low hundreds of copies for themselves. But the stories of single guys buying thousands of singles to vote for a single member are just bragging stories on twitter. The reality is different. Most of these votes will go to yahoo. Of course, media will always report the more sensational numbers, when the reality isnt as exciting - so i doubt you find any references for the reselling thing. But its the truth. I am a little bit surprised that the main editors of this article are unaware of it^^.Rka001 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the significance of Yahoo or ebay or voting pools should be referenced by reliable sources. Fan forums and actual auction posts only show that a method exists, and are not reliable sources in itself. You need news articles from reporters to say it is a notable practice. I also do not support a rewrite to "Various sources, especially in the music industry, have praised AKB48 for significantly boosting their record sales..." because that statement is biased. Obviously King Records will praise AKB48 for being their cash cow. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, i thought you would asking someone to elaborate on that matter. Thats what i did. I dont know any sources for the resales, so we cant include that into the article. But it is like it is. There is a huge secondary market. Like really huge. The statement as it stands in the article follows the sources but it doesnt exactly follow reality.
As a sidenote, this article would fare much better if people would recognize that there are tremendous differences between an idol group as AKB48 and concentional music acts. AKB48 is not there to sell music. Not at all. AKB48 is there to make fans go crazy for idols. Music is their vehicle to sell event tickets. Check digital sales - Sayonara Crawl was placed at an impressive 90-ish spot here in 2013 (to be fair, KFC was doing much better, but this was the first song since Heavy Rotation the japanese public actually liked^^). It's the same as people going to movies more than once because they liked that movie. A handshake lasts for about 7 seconds, so people will buy more tickets to have more "private" time with their favourite celebrity. If Rihanna would sell handshake tickets, how many tix would she sell per event?
Maybe interesting for you is the story, how AKS made sure that the last Janken single did not break the million sales streak. Janken singles are traditionally the weakest in sales, especially when the senbatsu is not starstudded. So, what did AKS do? They moved the Request Hour voting tickets from the 33rd to the 34th single. Thus, Suzukake (barely) made the million. This is how AKS markets its product. It is not about quality music (which is definately there from time to time), its about gimmicks and making people want more of them.
We once had a discussion, in which people were stating that members were replaceable and not notable by themselves. Which is basically the most stupid statement i ever heard about AKB48. The music is replaceable, members are not. The purpose of idols is to make people adore them. That's how they make money. It doesnt really matter how, as long as they do - there are superpopular members who cant sing for their lives, whereas the really good vocalists AKB48 had never were popular. This just in. You can go as long as you want about batshit crazy otakus spending tons of money on imaginary girlfriends, but you need to understand that this is EXACTLY the business model of AKB48 (and any other band with similar concepts). That is why i was so puzzled about the aggressive referencing of the "sales boosted by gimmicks"-statement. It is stating the obvious basically.Rka001 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Marketing section?

Should this article have a separate marketing or business section? This can expand on the various promotional schemes the group uses such as the general election, request hour, type-(whatever) editions, handshake events, rock-paper-scissors tournament, and timing releases with its sister groups to ensure everyone gets a chance to be number one. The related paragraphs from Concept and Membership would move here. Also information concerning its regular Television shows / channels, stores, and theater. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article could probably cut in half because of all of the trivial pufery that gets shoehorned in by Moscow Connection, if the edits at the Momoclo articles are any indication.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is an article from mainichi dealing with the (criminal abuse) of the secondary market. Here is the matome wrapup, in case Mainichi gets non-free again.Rka001 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm. Does it make sense to cover the crimes of some guys in the concept section? Or to have that covered at all? Just criminal guys. The really interesting thing is the sales on the secondary market and the "loads" of money one can get there. Rka001 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
About that grammar thing. "buying up to + numbers" is perfect English. Please google ""buying up to" and find hits like Air "Canada Buying Up to 109 Boeings". "To buy up" is "to buy everything available", which makes no sense in this context. You cannot buy up 1000 pieces if there are 1000000 more available. Also "up to" is much more accurate here. Because that is what is happening. But to clarify - what this sentence really should express is the fact that there fans that buy up to several thousands of copies, but also several hundreds, or just a few dozens (or for the vast majority, just one). Id rather say: "Several online sources state that fans buy up to several thousand copies to support [...]." I would like to express the gradient - if the copy/user ratio follows a norm distribution, we are currently giving only the outlier report. And if we are really, really brave wikipedia users, we could even say: "Fans buy up to several thousand copies to support their favourite members or to use the extras for resale on the secondary market" with the mainichi source being used for that. The secondary market hasnt been covered yet, but its immensely large. I mean who cares about some meanies stealing some cds to make some extra yens? If i was a reader, the several thousand auctions on yahoo would be much more interesting to me. Right now, we are reporting about stingy sensational stuff, as if we are some tabloid. Like, if we are trying to make a point here. Do we?Rka001 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It's related to fans buying multiple copies and it's been in the news all day. It's a nice DYK hook too: "Did you know that a group of AKB48 fans were arrested for use stolen credit cards to buy hundreds of copies of the band's CDs?"
And my message regarding English grammar was just to you which is why I left that message for you on your talk page. There is no reason to bring this into a public forum, but if you insist, it's because your insistence that we use "to buy up to" makes absolutely zero sense in context. When you use the phrase "to buy up to", it implies that there is an absolute limit of the items that can be bought because "to buy up to" is not an idiomatic verb. It's the verb "to buy" combined with the preposition "up to". The sentence "Jane can buy up to a dozen apples" means Jane can buy a dozen apples and no more than that. However, "to buy up" is an idiomatic verb that works perfectly fine in the context of purchasing an inexact and large quantity of things. The sentence "Jane can buy up dozens of apples" means Jane can buy many apples with no limit. So now you know why your version not only changes the meaning but makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am kinda convinced. You didnt adress the point why i like "up to" better (to give the gradient, not just the outliers). Any objection to change the sentence to "fans purchase (:P) up to several thousand copies...."?
It is more accurate (remember, norm distribution!) and it follows the sources better. As i said "Buy up" has also the meaning to buy everything that is available. Which is not correct in that context. So, what does the sources say?
  • "Many of AKB48's hard-core otaku, or geek, fans buy dozens, or even hundreds of copies of the same CD to give their favorite girl a boost in rankings, or to win a chance to meet her in person." WSJ
  • "Die-hard fans, those obsessed with individual members, will buy extra copies to procure more ballots." Japan Times
  • "'A fair election should be done with one vote per person. A person buying 50 or 100 CDs gets 50 or 100 votes — so the election is dominated by big money?'" Japan Times
  • "...the appeal of shelling out for dozens of the copies of the same song becomes irresistible for the band's many diehards." atlantic (which is linking to Kotaku, too)
  • "there's no limit on the number of ballots, meaning fans sometimes buy tens or hundreds of copies of one single in order to help their favorite member to the top;" The verge
  • Business week gives two examples of fans having several copies of the same cd. That's all.
  • "Fans are known to buy extra copies of these election singles to make sure their favourite singer receives as many votes as possible." Asian Correspondent.
  • "one AKB48 fan claims to have purchased 5,500 copies of the group's latest single "Everyday, Kachusha" for a grand total of ¥8.8 million, or US$109,000." kotaku.com "claims" and later "Even if this guy didn't buy 5,500 copies, it appears that he purchased many copies—if he actually bought these CDs. Though, there are online reports that he actually works for a deputy service and these are CDs he's purchased for others with other people's money."
I am a little bit confused. The collected weight of the sources are a little bit different than your sentence, or? But maybe i missed a few instances. Please clarify!
As a sidenote, please watch your language, and stay calm. There is a guideline for it :P. Working with you would be much more convenient, if you wouldn't be stubborn and loud. I havent seen many contributors using so many "fucks" and "shits" as you have. You may feel like sounding cool and superior, but you don't. Thank you. I mean, its not like you are the saviour as this article. Your contributions so far include the attempted removal of the sousenkyo rankings, the addition of a single sentence with subpar references and now this penny dreadful. So, dont act like you are King Dingeling. This is just @hominem. Dont take it personal :P
I am also not very convinced why you use so much room for a single accident like that, especially in the context of "concept", whereas this article actually needs reduction. Does this add anything of value? Is this a news article? Are crimes symptomatic for the secondary market? We could shorten that to "Resale values of cd extras has lead to criminal activities in one occasion." Or sth like that. Also the mainichi source says sth about internet auctions and reselling activities. Because a good chunk of CDs never see the interior of a CD drive. The currency calculation seems to be messed up as well. But most importantly, please clarify if the sources given are reflected by that sentence in the article. Thank you.Rka001 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Any combination of a word meaning to acquire by trading money for goods or services directly followed by the prepositional phrase "up to" is not proper grammar in this context of someone buying an undefined number of items. "Up to" defines an upper limit. End of that discussion.
I looked up however many sources I could to source the fact that individuals purchase multiple copies of the singles, and there are sources that show individuals have purchased hundreds and thousands of CDs at a time. What happens after that is not mentioned by those sources.
The sources recently added to the page are not about the secondary market for CDs. They're about the theft of credit card numbers which were used to purchase several hundred AKB48 CDs which have been the focus of the Japanese entertainment news in the past day.
I have not made one swear in this entire discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with "buy up" instead of "buy up to". When someone buys thousands, they're trying to get as many as they can. The credit card thefts to purchase albums/singles as front page news does warrant moving it back to the controversy section, where it goes back to artificially inflating the numbers. It's like that other tidbit where they had to stop that promotion of having one of 48 posters, or any kind of news where a music company buys up (sic) their own albums and counts that towards its sales. What someone does with an album after buying it isn't really newsworthy, at least not until it gets to memorabilia or criminal levels like scalping tickets. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I can see it staying in the Concept section as the marketing and business aspect of an idol group, including having its own television/radio channel, is what sets it apart from the regular girl groups. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, its your general behaviour. You are acting like Captain Wikipedia or something. Well, if you need that for your ego, i am cool with that, but i can tell you that friendly manners will carry you a lot further than deliberately pissing ppl off. Anyway, the sources given are not backing up that statement. As i stated above. I will read all of them again (btw, i am really glad, somebody seemed to have removed that funny story about the husband and his 400 copies). There is one source (even the worst by far) CLAIMING that another guy CLAIMS he had bought several thousands copies. And later on, the same blog even states it is unsure if this guy is telling the truth. This is rather weak for such a bold claim we make. I am actually wondering if you have read my source survey from above? Last time i checked we should give weight to good, reliable sources. We have those aplenty. But we are using kontaku.com (wtf?) to claim how thousands of copies are bought by individuals, whereas the really good sources (WSJ, for example) are saying just hundreds or dozens. This is sensationalism, nothing else. What are we? Shukan Bunshun? So, what is the downside of saying "multiple copies" or "hundreds"? Isnt it sensational enough for you guys? The point is, that individuals may buy more than copy becaue of extra gimmicks. We have solid references to back that up. And then another facepalm for the idea to give four criminals and an obvious singular event about half a chapter with redundant sourcing when in fact we should actually reduce this article. Seems like you are about to turn that into The Sun or something.
My honest mistake was, i just know "buy up" in the context of "buy everything from the market". Sorry. Rka001 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, your last edit was to move the concept section below the history. Now, readers are confronted with the term "Team" and later on with "handshakes" without knowing whats going on. It is in fact a very stupid edit, because we have the opportunity to explain the very basic concepts of the group directly post-lead. For example, we would have had already introduced the fact that some singles are selling that well because of tickets. Your problem is that you never really think through your edits. You just do as you like, never awaits consensus, or even ask others. I would very much like to have you in the team to actually improve the article, because you seem like a clever guy, but as long as you are acting like everybody else is an idiot, people will constantly clash. Rka001 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If noone is going to object, i am going to reword the section according to the sources provided. Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I object, obviously. And maybe instead of cramming everything into a concept section, you should describe these terms as they come up in the history.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference vote1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference vote2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference vote3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference vote4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference election2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AKB48/Archive_2&oldid=1074680049"