Talk:Hololive Production

Tokino Sora placed under the "Products" section of the infobox

Should I fix that? TechnocraticCat 09:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• That part meant to imply the Vtubers(the characters, models, brand) themselves are the product like when Hololive/Cover collab their characters with games like Azur Lane, Neptunia or featured in the snack card collection.). I was planning on either replacing that with something more generic or find better way to list more members. Feking83 (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Feking83: Ah, understood. For the meantime I put Sora on key people as the first recruit, but it's fine if you decide to move her back to the products section.

Incidents section

Hello there. I think the entire incidents section should be dropped. The sourcing for that section is spotty at best, and it includes a lot of information that the EN side of the fanbase assumes to be true (such as Mio being issued two copyright strikes, when the amount wasn't confirmed). Unfortunately, the EN side is often misinformed about many incidents, and I feel like this is reflected in that section. --Mr. Mario (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The source contain official statement from Cover admitting to these incidents and the ANN news report also included Japanese sources in it as well. The copyright strike things for example came from her two Ghost Trick videos getting strike hence having two strikes. I only include confirmed info in this section which is why you don't see stuff like the content from Aloe private twitcast clip. Also frankly speaking, this section is the primary reason why this page could get past Wikipedia notability guideline.Feking83 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to greatly disagree with you there. I highly doubt that controversies is the only reason this page can exist as Hololive is most certainly a notable organization, being the top earners from YouTube's streaming program. They have been covered by both ANN and Crunchyroll outside of controversies, and there are plenty of Japanese language sources that cover Hololive. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Hololive has many Japanese language sources, such as PR TIMES and PANORA. A Japanese language Google search also brings up more Japanese language sources. I advise you to bring a Japanese speaker, or at least someone that knows Japanese, on board to write this page, as they can get a far better point of view on this topic. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

PR TIMES is literally a PR site for companies to post their Press release (you can see the company name at the top of the articles and the site "about page" also list its purpose as PR site) and there are several PANORA citation in this articles already including ones copy directly from WikipediaJP. The source from this section are from site specialized in this kind Japanese pop culture and are reliable enough that you shouldn't need worried the validity of the articles cited and even then I also included the official press release (including the PR TIMES articles that you were talking about earlier) that confirm that these chain of events did in fact happen.Feking83 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration

@AngusWOOF: Domo. I was not expecting this article to still be actively receiving edits, but it is a welcome surprise. We should collaborate. I am making use of the Hololive fan discord to gain access to the fan translator community, so my work may be slow, but I hope highly accurate. With that said, I think we should work together, in real time, on the unofficial WikiMedia discord's Anime-Manga channel. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Vami IV, you can go ahead and work on the article. I just wanted the bulk of the history to go into the History section. All the stuff regarding generation debuts, major character names, spinoff brands, and promotions, should go there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. My offer still stands, though, and thank you for the material you've added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Vami IV, the events can also be merged into the History section, as well as albums. I treat it like the AKB48 article where for each year is about a paragraph, and it shows major members joining/leaving, events/releases, and spinoff branches formed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, and I will act on it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Roadmap and to-do list

Grüß Gott. I have, since falling into the Hololive rabbit hole in March or February of this year, given plenty of thought to researching and writing about Hololive on the English Wikipedia. I didn't act on it at that time, as I was busy, but editor Feking83 did, and started the draft that became this article. As soon as I noticed that draft and had some free time, I made some contributions by translating from Japanese Wikipedia's Hololive article. At about that time, too, I noticed the recent creation of Hoshimachi Suisei by editor Sacchisachi and set to work there too. To help ensure accuracy in my work, as I do not speak Japanese, I contacted the community of volunteers clipping and subbing Hololive content for the enjoyment of overseas fans. Their assistance with translations has been invaluable. I've moved to make this collaboration more concrete there, so I thought it'd be a good idea to do that here, too. The TED talk you are about to read is for any translators who found their way here, or for other Wikipedia editors looking to chip in. --♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This article will, per AngusWOOF's comments above, be modeled after the article for AKB48. I want firstly to combine the "Concept" and "History" sections into one unified "History" section, and then expand it with subsections for years / eras of hololive history. "Conception and development" as it is will also be expanded and serve as the content between the main "History" header and "2017". My reason for doing this is because that concept and that development is part of the history as the genesis of the topic you are reading about. It also makes for a smaller article size (WP:SIZE) and, to me, just looks nicer. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, it has been raised both here and to me personally by members of the hololive fan community that this article presently focuses too much on Hololive's controversies. There are reasons for this, mainly that Japanese Wikipedia's article covers them and that Cover itself issued official statements for each instance, giving editors plenty to work with. More recent controversies have become very notable thanks to Western press coverage. "Controversies" will be liquidated into "History", again per AngusWOOF's comments. The content of this section will also probably find itself shrunk down considerably for want of reliable sources. I am thinking as I write this of the maintenance tags I have placed in this section. The AKB48 article also has a "Controversies" section, but it also neatly places the 2014 assault and attempted murder of two members and a staffer in its "History" section. The same will be done here, and thus the undue emphasis on Hololive controversies diminished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This has now been effected, though in the process I have axed a great deal of the article, to be rewritten and added back in later. Of the original "Controversies" section and its subs, the only one that will survive as its own unit, I have decided, is the Yozora Mel case. The game streaming rights issue can be safely and snugly fit into the regular timeline, Mel's misfortunes in late 2019 cannot. While I am here updating this, I shall soon be adding some details of a controversy involving a former associate of Hololive in China who was dismissed for a seemingly out of context but still inappropriate comment about the KyoAni arson attack. I have been cooperating with translators, which has revealed the Japanese Wikipedia coverage of this event is inaccurate, at least to the single citation used (COVER's statement on and resolution of the matter). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I want, insofar as much as reliable sources will allow, a section on Hololive media such as Holo no Graffiti, Cover's weekly series of 3d anime shorts. An accounting of Hololive's members existed on this article in the past, and may again in the future, though again in the style of the AKB48 article. This will probably become the case as Hololive grows more notable in the West. VTubers have once before seized the attention of foreign presses, to say nothing of Miku Hatsune. Discography will likely also receive the same treatment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving this comment here now to prove that I was right. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abridged rules of engagement

Here is an abridged version of the rules I set for myself in the translation community, but from a Wikipedia perspective:

1. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, only reliable sources such as official statements or credible media will be used for this article. There will be citations of Reddit posts.
   1. Per Wikipedia:No original research, there will be no speculative writing in this article.
   2. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, under which articles for Hololive talents will fall, every biography must be supported by reliable sources and be absent of original research.
2. Per WP:CIVIL, interactions between me, translators, and other Wikipedia editors should be civil in nature and constructive.
   1. Per WP:BITE, I will be nice to translators and other volunteers to this project.
3. I will not publish something I did not first have a translator ascertain the accuracy of while I was editing.
4. Per WP:NPOV, my goal is to present an entirely neutral, not negative or positive and promotional, accounting of Hololive.

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice, I have added a rule after thinking over the second comment of my roadmap, because I believe it is important to underscore this law of the Encyclopedia. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Useful links

Archives of two reliable sources to be parsed through, and recorded below with their content(s):

1. Press releases by Cover/Hololive via the PR TIMES
2. Articles about Cover/Hololive by PANORA

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

1. "Hololive" tag on MoguraLiveVR
2. "AZKi" tag, ibid
3. INNK Music tag, ibid

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Credits and thanks

First and foremost, the volunteer translation and subtitling community of Hololive fans. I have contact with them over Discord, and their proofreading has been invaluable. Collaborators, if you are reading this, you have helped make what I thought to be impossible very much possible. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors AngusWOOF and Goszei have provided valuable comments and asked important questions as I have worked. I greatly appreciate the assistance thus rendered. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor Feking83, who first created this article as a draft and carried it to completion. I stand on their shoulders now as I write this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki Collaborator Kamen, who has acted as a research assistant and with whom I have exchanged notes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section

@Vami IV: It looks like the Controversies section was removed and the contents moved back into the History section. AKB48 has a separate Controversies section, and it seems similarly appropriate here. BenjaminTW (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and yes, I removed the Hololive one. Study the AKB48 article, though. The controversies in the AKB48 article can't really be easily or even should be packed into "History", though, as they're not part of the story, as it were. My decision to not have a "Controversies" section if it's not necessary, which it may be as I continue researching, is also for neutrality. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

{{Interlanguage link}}

This template supports |display=1 which will cause the link to continue to display the non-English-language links even when the English article is created, just like it does with a redirect without this parameter:

Non-redirect, shows the non-English link as well as the English link, plus, no expensive parser function call.

{{ill|Hololive Production|it|Hololive}} -> Hololive Production

{{ill|Hololive Production|it|Hololive|display=1}} -> Hololive Production

Redirect, no visible change, but there is no expensive parser function call:

{{ill|Hololive|it|Hololive}} -> Hololive

{{ill|Hololive|it|Hololive|display=1}} -> Hololive

Redlink, no visible change, but there is no expensive parser function call:

{{Nihongo|{{ill|Tokino Sora|ja|ときのそら}}|ときのそら}} -> Tokino Sora (ときのそら)

{{Nihongo|{{ill|Tokino Sora|ja|ときのそら}}|ときのそら|display=1}} -> Tokino Sora (ときのそら)

This may be helpful if the non-English-language version is significantly different than the English-language one.

As noted above, is parameter has a nice side effect: It eliminates the "expensive parser function call" that is required to check if a page is a redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a picture of Gawr Gura in the main section

Being that Gura was the first Hololive Talent to hit 1 Million subscribers, she should be in the article as a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligamer (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Better to apply an all-or-nothing approach. Y'know how fanbases are? "Why is so-and-so pictured in the article but not (my favorite)?" KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

[Two off-topic discussions have been removed] -205.175.118.111 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Music by single members

Since Hololive have a lot singles both paid(Ahoy, Shallys,...) and free(Say Fanfare,Ai mai Chocolate) how do we include them without listing all them ? The current Discography section lacks a lot of the individual songs that a lot of the girls (and Rikka) releasedFeking83 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Feking83: In my opinion, the singles by individual Hololive members are a little outside of the scope of this article, though I don't feel strongly either way. They would be best suited for individual articles on the talents (if those are ever created). — Goszei (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discography release dates

@Boyohboy231: In the Hololive section for Selected discography, it looks like the release dates from "BLUE CLAPPER" onward are 1 day off from the dates specified in the press releases. Just trying to check with you the mismatched date info compared to the references. Lzer (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"A (internet meme)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect A (internet meme). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31#A (internet meme) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Does Cover really need to have its own page?

Just because JP wiki does it doesn't we have to. Just compare their Hololive articles and ours. There's really nothing about Cover on its own that warrant a separate articles especially if nobody have anything to expand. Feking83 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and think it should be merged back here. Cover is only notable in the context of its subdivision, Hololive. — Goszei (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The JP article for cover has more information than the English one. 13,329 and 4,889 bytes respectively. I don't see the harm in keeping it. Maybe someone who has the language ability and time can try translating some of it over. I'd like to add though that the Japanese article has a template at the top of the page, which was added last month, saying the article might not meet notability standards. so im fine with whatever decision is settled on. I think the article should stay, but i understand the reasoning for it being merged. Daiichi1 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't have the language ability, but did that anyway? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, I didn't create the cover article if thats what your referring to. If your talking about some other stuff i translated, my Japanese isn't native but it is around an intermediate level, i wasn't insinuating i didn't know the language in my previous comment so this might just be a misunderstanding. Daiichi1 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely against Cover having its own article. Cover is managing one company, a combination of its three agencies (Hololive, Holostars, and INoNaKa Music), and their histories are intertwined such as to make them the same company. That is, in fact, how most of the community sees Cover. Fans will say "Hololive", but mean "Cover". To boot, every new update to Cover's technology is demonstrated by Hololive members. I reiterate, their histories are one and the same. Their articles should be thus. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think basing this decision off of what most fans think is a good idea, most fans are unaware and unknowledgeable of the business side of the products they consume. Cover is active in ventures outside of just Vtuber management like their merchandising, live entertainment, and app development businesses, these however are centered around their vtuber talents, so i do see your point on the intertwinedness of it all. Daiichi1 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a broader issue at play. While Cover is known in the west for its one brand, they are diversifying into other fields, and it should be touched upon, standalone page or not. It also seems like we are headed for another AEON page. If you don't know what I'm talking about (for example), the English AEON page has little information compared to its Japanese counterpart, yet is still up & running in its current state. I'm sorry if I put my two cents into this debate, but I find that this is a topic that I had to bring in examples for. Arnolden13 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I just check the JP wiki page for Cover and they got hit with both "lack of independent source" and "notability" issue. What google translate tell me is that the only new information is: more financial information in the infobox, the list of their business operation (talent management, merchandising and AR/Live concert) and an extra paragraph about the streaming app.Feking83 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hololive Music Release

With the recent ranking of Bouquet on the Oricon overall album chart, how do we proceed with having the company's discography? Would recommend adopting a franchise-style discography listing for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulaire (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Restoring the Member list

The only thing I can say is that I don't think the member list is irrelevant and articles like Essex-class aircraft carrier or King Records (Japan) have their members list. Hololive also have 10+ over a-million-subs channels under their network so to not highlight their members is cutting too much stuff. As for source just use Cover talent list as the main source and use retirement announcement as source for former members.Feking83 (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yea having the member list as a footnote does not make sense. It was perfectly acceptable as a list within the article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I hate to invoke the term, but the list is arguably crufty. The talent lists themselves are borderline and I think they should be in the article, which is why I thought footnoting was a good compromise, but the individual debut/retirement dates are definitely excessive (as evidenced by the fact that all of them would need to be primary-sourced, which we already are pushing in this article). If we made a section again, it would take up a lot of space for little return because we should omit the individual debut dates. I therefore lean towards keeping them in the footnotes. — Goszei (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and created this account solely to request that the Talent section be added back please. I frequently referred to it when I was learning about Hololive even to this day. Having it at the footnote makes it really not visible, I didn't know it was there until I read your comment above. Not sure why you find it excessive to have their debut/retirement dates, but it helps to learn about which were the more senior talents and remember those that left. Nonetheless, I think we should keep the Talents section since they are the ones that led us to google for hololive. Johnnydolan (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia we shouldn't be including these lists simply because they're useful. If there's no hope of maintaining the full talent list (with debut and retirement dates) without the use of primary sources, it implies that the information isn't considered notable enough for inclusion. I have to agree with Goszei that the full talent list does seem like something like I'd find on Fandom or Hololive Fan Wiki (which they surprisingly don't have), but I'd argue that a condensed list showing which talents belong to which generations (i.e. without debut/retirement dates) takes up about the same amount of space as the footnotes and is easier to read. As it is, the bulleted lists within each footnote leave a lot of whitespace. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of this sort, including debut and retirement dates, at [1]. — Goszei (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Order of talents in the lead

This has been a matter of back-and-forth editing for a while. I think that a list sorted by total YouTube views, rather than subscribers, better captures the members that constitute "core Hololive" (within a reasonable list number, like 8 or 9), and places the most recognizable/iconic names first. There is also the added benefit that a view-based listing is less susceptible to change (as an example: presumably, Coco will soon drop off the list of most-subscribed talents, but she should remain in the listing for her significance).

For example, the top 9 by subscribers right now are Gura, Korone, Pekora, Mori, Fubuki, Marine, Aqua, Coco, and Watson, while the top 9 by views are Pekora, Marine, Fubuki, Coco, Korone, Aqua, Mori, Gura, and Haato. I think the latter listing is better. — Goszei (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, the significance and ranking of any particular talent should be demonstrated by a reliable and independent source. Arranging them by the numbers makes sense, but it's still a bit promotional and a bit arbitrary. Hopefully sources can be found which decide which members are 'core' members, which are iconic, how many members would be reasonable, etc. This is an article about a company, and also an article about a fandom. For an encyclopedia, it's important to maintain perspective and remember that this page isn't just for fans (nor for antis, obviously). Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stronger sources

Adding more general audience sources would be a big improvement for the article. Trimming stuff that is only supported by PR would also help. Niche websites like Anime News Network should be used somewhat sparingly, because they are poor for establishing WP:DUE weight. I think Crunchyroll news is similar, at best. Press releases should just be avoided whenever possible, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. While I think intentions have been good, the article has too many of both of these kinds of sources.

Regarding her upcoming graduation, Kiryu Coco has been mentioned in a recent source:

• Dean, Jake; Marinescu, Delia (10 June 2021). "The Virtual YouTube World Is in Uproar. What's the Virtual YouTube World?". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 21 June 2021.

From past experience, the best way to improve articles related to pop-culture fandoms is to remember to write for a general audience. The Slate article is kind of obnoxiously written, but it's very, very clearly trying to explain things to people who don't already know what vtubers are. For Wikipedia's purposes, this is a good approach to keep in mind.

Even better than general audience sources would be academic sources. It looks like some exist, but more digging is needed. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

About Coco's Graduation mention

The situation and where the Coco graduation is said makes it part of the controversy, rather than a normal graduation that she parted. It makes an implication that her graduation is related to a controversy which is at most speculation or straight up false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.178.249 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Very much seconded after stopping by the main article. Coco's graduation is unrelated to the Taiwan Incident, as remarked during her streams between announcement on June 9 and graduation on July 1. If anything, it should be placed as a point under a 2021 header instead of being related to something that it very much is not. Whoever inserted it there did so without regard of the chain of events. 86.17.137.156 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

INNK section

So since Azki is being moved to the main branch and INNK being officially closed how should we maintain the list.

1. Moved Azki to Gen0, delete INNK section and reference to the move in suisei and Azki entry.

2. Moved Suisei to Innk and add a reference to the move in that section instead

3. Both like what we did with Fubuki.

Feking83 (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I say wait until April when the move is official and then move AZKi to Gen 0 (option 1). _dk (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential new source

Looking for sources I found this one:

• Kovacic, Mateja (1 January 2022). "Cyborg in Idology Studies: Symbiosis of Animating Humans and Machines". Idology in Transcultural Perspective: 91–131. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-82677-2_5.

Available to preview on Google Books

I don't love that it cites a Fandom wiki, but it's still useful. It compares Hololive to other vtuber agencies such as Nijisanji, VOMs, Tsunderia, and VShoujo. Specifically, it discusses Hololive's size and importance to the vtuber market, and also its relative control over its talents compared to other agencies. It mentions that VOMS says that they "don't care about profit" and VShoujo functions as tech support for otherwise independent performers. In contrast, Hololive works to export its "unique Japanese entertainment culture to the world".

Considering the popularity of this company's franchises I am still surprised by the over-all lack of reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comprehensive list

@Corinal: Hello.

I understand the motivation to include all members, but there are some issues. You may have already seen it, but WP:SOURCELIST discusses some of the expectations.

First is notability. While you are correct to point to WP:NNC for content, the section is titled Notable talents, so we are specifically telling readers that these talents are notable. If we include non-notable talents, we need a reasons, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

So, popularity doesn't guarantee notability, and notability requires evidence. So a list title that says "notable" means notable by Wikipedia's standards. Otherwise, it will not be clear to readers why they are being mentioned. I understand why editors want to add every member, but if disinterested readers cannot tell important information from trivia, that's a problem. Therefore, we need to start with sources first. This could partially be done with Cover's websites (which is what I cited for the fair-use images of Hoshimachi Suisei and Natsuiro Matsuri) but it's not necessarily a good precedent to set for a list, as it's neither an impartial source nor a complete source.

Regarding links to JP Wikipedia, different Wikipedias have different standards, and the Japanese Wiki's standards are not the same as the English ones. Including these links makes sense to me, but it's a compromise. We are including them under the assumption that the Japanese articles have reliable sources which show notability.

An additional issue is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place for original research, tempting as it is. We have to follow sources, and if we don't have sources, we're out of luck. Above I posted an example source that I felt could be useful for this reason. I have periodically looked for sources, but not found a lot. I'm surprised by this, considering how ubiquitous they are in popular culture, but that's not a problem Wikipedia can solve. Just now I found a student newspaper article about Kureiji Ollie, but I don't think this meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. That seems to be the level of English-language sources, at least for now. As Ollie is approaching a million subscribers, I suspect that there may be coverage in Indonesian outlets, but since I do not speak that language, I cannot evaluate them for reliability. By the way, the Bahasa Indonesian Wikipedia doesn't appear have articles for individual HoloID members.

I hope that explains the problem. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The section is titled Notable talents is because the previous all talents version is purged by Drmies.NNV specifically mention that "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies."

Due weight, balance: The content of the list is purely data, who is managed by this organization and its subsidiaries. There's no majority/minority or possitive/negative opinion of the matter of the subject it just data to provide context of to the nature of the organization, its activities, issues and achievement. Especially since the list is a supplement to the page main content which is the history section.

Content policy: A list taken directly of from the agency official website is reliable information on the matters of whose it is managing especially in this case where they also have copyright ownership of the characters themselves. It's not even original research which by Wikidia definition "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" because it is just raw data.

My own opinion on this is that when your are the topic of the article is on a talent agency and its fandom, a list of talents of that organization managed is kind of needed in this context the same way the page for a game company would includes all their games (see: Gust) or a how a manga mangazine would include at least all currently serializing manga (see: Weekly Shōnen Jump). The most similar to Hololive, AKB48 have a list using direct primary source. On the issue of source, when you are dealing with topic relating to niche culture why shouldn't a source from that subculture be considered notable/reliable in this case what makes Anime News Network or Siliconera a bad source in the context of anime related article. Feking83 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We still have to cite actual, reliable sources. More, the goal should be to provide context to readers. Info-dumps don't provide context, and here that context is important.

Being niche is not the same as being unreliable. What makes a source reliable, per WP:RS, is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Smaller sources tend to have less reputation, so they tend to be less reliable, but this is not an absolute rule. If you know of sources, please propose them, or try the reliable source noticeboard.

One area where being part of a subculture can be a problem is that niche outlets often rely on press releases, which is a process known as churnalism. These kinds of sources are not reliable. Both video game and Anime news sources tend to produce a lot of churnalism. Unfortunately, a lot of that ends up in Wikipedia. I try to remove those kinds of sources when I find them, but this is a lot of work.

As I said, Cover's own website is neither independent, nor comprehensive (it doesn't mention graduated members other than Coco and Kagami Kira). This is perfectly fine, because the company is not obligated to mention anyone at all. The problem then with using Cover's website is that we are making a value judgement on who is and is not noteworthy based on primary source. Interpreting primary sources is a form of original research. Cover's goal is the same as most companies: to promote its products and services. Again, that's perfectly fine, but it's not the same as Wikipedia's goal.

So if we used primary sources, we would have to leave out too much context and significant amounts of important info, and if we ignored sources we would be adding original research which is not acceptable.

Does this make sense?

As for other articles, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Problems elsewhere are elsewhere. We have to focus on sources for this article. Incidentally, I have worked on some of those other articles (for example, List of Unity games). My standard there is the same as here: Information should be supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in the edit summary, notability applies to the list as a whole not the individual members unless the list specifically restrict inclusion to notable people, and its clear the list as a whole is notable, i changed the name of section from "notable talents" to "talents" to address this. A primary source is sufficient to source the fact these are indeed the actual talents, it does not need to be "impartial" to simply source who the talents are, listing the talents is not "trivia" and its pretty clear why they would be listed on this article. Also, even if you were correct, Adding the talents would improve the article, there isn't any actual doubt regarding the accuracy of who the talents are, or if it is important information for the article. Corinal (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, think of it this way: a couple of experienced editors have a removed this content, so consider that maybe there are valid reasons.

Here's one reason that hasn't been mentioned yet: I have seen a lot of articles about fandoms, music groups, and pop-culture topics get decimated because they included too much detail, and what counts as "too much" and what doesn't is determined by independent sources. I'm not saying this as a criticism, but as an explanation.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The project's goal is to summarize other sources. Vtubers are very popularity right now, but sources haven't kept up. Hololive is the most prominent example of this new fandom, but again, sources haven't kept up. Because of that, my concern is that this article is going to attract attention from less patient editors. Maybe I'm completely wrong. but if this kind of thing goes to the larger community (such as via WP:RFC) I suspect everyone's going to ask the same question I am: where are the sources. I've also tried to explain why I don't think Cover's websites are sufficient. Again, I'm not saying this as a criticism, but as an explanation.

If this list is important, it should be supported by sources. You don't have to agree with our reasoning, but sooner or later, sources will be necessary.

As for IAR, Wikipedia is built on consensus. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a source, the one you mentioned, just because it is primary does not mean it cannot be used for this, the notability of hololive as a whole is well established by other sources in the article. Also, don't justify your position by saying "other people agree with me" justify it on its own merits. Simply listing the names of the talents on the article is not excessive detail (if it were nearly the entire article would be excessive detail) Corinal (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you on this issue don't mean I'm your adversary. That's why I mentioned that another more experience editor also made this edit. It's not to justify the edit, it's to indicate that we're not picking on this article arbitrarily. So please look at it on its own merits. As I said, the primary source is incomplete, so it's selective, and that's a problem. Further, yes, the article is too detailed for the sources that it cites. If this gets worse, more editors will notice the problem. The articles needs more sources over-all. That's a very common problem with a lot of Wikipedia articles, especially about popular culture topics. If the problem gets bad enough to make it to the larger community via a noticeboard, they will side with the hatchet instead of the scalpel, because that's what the existing sources support. If you want to protect and improve the article, the way to do that is by citing more reliable sources, and also to remove stuff that isn't well supported. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see you as an adversary sorry if it seems that way. That said you should not assume other editors positions, I certainty support adding sources but for reasons already discussed, its important it be a complete list. Corinal (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Subjectively, yes, it's obvious that it's important to be a complete list. Objectively, importance is decided by reliable sources, not editors. As I said previously on this talk page, the article is not just for fans, it's for disinterested parties that are looking for context. Lists don't really provide any context. That's part of the problem here. I know that seems pedantic, but I'm saying this for a reason. Like I said, I have seen a lot of topics get decimated because they only relied on primary sources. Right now, the list of members doesn't cite any source at all.

So if we ONLY use Cover-corp's websites, we are acting as a replacement for those websites, which is out of scope. If we add the other talents that are no longer listed, we are introducing original research. If another experienced editor comes along and sees this problem, the most obvious fix will be to just remove the list completely.

Adding links to the JP articles is at best a temporary measure (the sources at those articles are pretty bad) but importantly, they absolutely have to be working links. Adding broken links to articles on other projects is only going to piss-off readers, and rightly so. On English Wikipedia, redlinks are easily identifiable. With cross-wiki links, readers have no way of knowing that they are wasting their time clicking on a link that goes nowhere. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely that linking to the JP articles is not a good idea, but I don't see how a simple list relying on a primary source is a problem when the rest of the article has many secondary sources. Adding secondary sources would be good, but the list retains importance either way. If you have secondary sources you'd like to add feel free to, but we shouldnt remove (or restrict) the list in anticipation of other editors doing so. Also if a source can be found for the former talents then they can be included as well, though talents can be interpreted as "current talents" so perhaps a new section in the list for those would be good. Corinal (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point. We shouldn't try and second guess what other editors might do in the future. What I've been trying to do is explain why I think they might do that, but that's a subtly different issue.

As I said, right now the list isn't supported by any source at all. We know a primary source exists, but we still have to actually cite it, and that's not as easy as it might seem.

Vtubers in general, and Hololive specifically, is in a weird position for Wikipedia, for a few reasons. Counting former members and support like Yuujin A, Hololive has approx. 50 members. Include or exclude some people could be arbitrary unless there's a reason. Why wouldn't we include Yuujin A? Why not Holostars? Why not HoloID? If we include Coco (who is mentioned in WP:IS), why exclude the ones who aren't listed? When editors are picking-and-choosing what to include and what to leave out, it starts to look like editorializing.

It gets weirder. We're not listing the performers themselves, we're listing their personas via their copyrighted pseudonyms. If this were merely a list of employees in a company, it would not belong per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. So how do we treat copyrighted personas? To put it another way, how do we explain to disinterested readers why this list is encyclopedically significant? Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the way we explain is just that, that the list as a whole has sources (though they are not currently there, they should be added) and picking and choosing which members to include is editorialising and does not follow WP:NOTEWORTHY Corinal (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

AZKi/INNK Music in Selected discography section

INNK Music is now officially closed, and there was a previous discussion about where to move AZKi. Currently, AZKi is under Hololive Generation 0 in the Talents section.

Should we remove the INNK Music section in Selected discography to reflect AZKi's current position in Hololive? I realize this also involves cutting out the chart position for her album without U. I have seen that several other Hololive members have had their albums chart as well, so it would be cleaner if each talent has their solo releases in the discography section of their own pages instead of including every charted album on the main Hololive page.

As an aside, Hololive really has been creating a lot of music in the past year with several songs coming out per month. Even the Hololive Idol Project singles that I helped expand is getting long too. We should still keep those singles since they are Hololive group releases, though each year a new song does invariably get released and the list grows longer. Lzer (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The "On (Date)" format

Granted, this is a standard practice across many Wikipedia articles of various scopes. Just a general note, too many of these as one sentence entries end up making sections look like lists and time lines. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Change order from the talent list of the Generation 5 to match the name of the generation as stated

From

Generation 5 (NePoLaBo)

• Yukihana Lamy [ja] (雪花ラミィ)
• Momosuzu Nene [ja] (桃鈴ねね)
• Shishiro Botan [ja] (獅白ぼたん)
• Omaru Polka [ja] (尾丸ポルカ)

To

Generation 5 (NePoLaBo)

• Momosuzu Nene [ja] (桃鈴ねね)
• Omaru Polka [ja] (尾丸ポルカ)
• Yukihana Lamy [ja] (雪花ラミィ)
• Shishiro Botan [ja] (獅白ぼたん) J3ff3z (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Feel free to reopen the request when you're ready to answer the question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

Collapsed for space and convenience

Cover Corporation Native name カバー株式会社 Company type Kabushiki-gaisha Traded as TYO: 5253 ISIN JP3218500001 Industry Streaming Concert Merchandising Lincensing Founded 13 June 2016 (2016-06-13) Founder Motoaki Tanigo Headquarters Chūō, Tokyo , Japan Key people Motoaki Tanigo (President and CEO) Kazuyuki Fukuda (Director and CTO) Revenue ¥20.451 billion (FY2023) Operating income ¥3.417 billion (FY2023) Net income ¥2.508 billion (FY2023) Total assets ¥15.887 billion (FY2023) Owner (as of September 20, 2023): Motoaki Tanigo (39.49%) Ikko Fukuda (4.264%) STRIVE, Inc (3.844%) Mizuho Capital Co., Ltd. (2.697%) Chiba Dojo KK (2.329%) Hakuhodo DY Ventures Ltd. (2.161%) i-nest capital Co. Ltd. (2.161%) Number of employees 392  (Dec 2022) Website cover-corp.com References

SauKo321 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This isn't really formatted as a request, but it appears the proposal is to add this to the infobox for the company:

| owner = '''(as of September 20, 2023)''':<br />Motoaki Tanigo (39.49%)<br>Ikko Fukuda (4.264%)<br>STRIVE, Inc (3.844%)<br>Mizuho Capital Co., Ltd. (2.697%)<br>Chiba Dojo KK (2.329%)<br>Hakuhodo DY Ventures Ltd. (2.161%)<br>i-nest capital Co. Ltd. (2.161%)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/COVER-CORPORATION-151385540/company/|title=COVER CORPORATION (5253)|date=September 20, 2023|access-date=September 20, 2023}}</ref>

I am declining this for now for a couple reasons.

For one, this level of detail seems excessive for an infobox, especially for a company of this size. For another, it's not clear to me how reliable MarketScreener is for this. There are also potential WP:PRIMARY sources. If these issues are addressed, or other editors disagree, I will not block consensus on this. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

There is a factual error in the introductory paragraph.

The statement "the agency manages 75 VTubers from three different native languages (Japanese, Indonesian and English)" is factually inaccurate, as several of the talents speak other languages natively.

Takanashi Kiara comes to mind with (Austrian) German as stated in her debut stream, and Ninomae Ina'nis likely speaks Korean natively, although the latter was never directly confirmed to my knowledge.

I propose changing the sentence to say something like "the agency manages 75 VTubers in three target languages (Japanese, Indonesian and English)".

Hum-chan (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. First language#Definitions explains why the term is ambiguous, but this ambiguity has very little to do with Hololive as an encyclopedia topic. (Same with Languages of Indonesia). Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

Cover corp move their hq to minato, tokyo Rifa10z (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done, the Cover Corp infobox was already updated with the new HQ location.Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

Under section "Media and events":

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  "holololive IDOL PROJECT"

  +

  "hololive IDOL PROJECT"

• Why it should be changed: minor typo

88.141.112.240 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the article's statistics is apparently cited to an article which was published years before the year of the data point itself

"As of December 2024, the agency has accumulated over 80 million subscribers across its 80+ channels on YouTube.[68]"

If you then click on source 68 it's an article published in 2021. unless the people of Japan are able to Time Travel then i do not see how an article published in 2021 could support an assertion about the year 2024. Sebbatt (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Return to China

It seems Kobo is streaming on Bilibili (https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1PJ4m137Ez/) however it doesn't seem like any news sources have picked up on this. If anyone can find a source mentioning it, I would appreciate it if someone could add that to the taiwan controversy and suspensions section, along on information that no holomember has been streaming on bilibili since the controversy.

Writing this here in the hope that someone writes about this in the future and another editor then sees this talk page section and does a little search.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Section on Taiwan seems quite incorrect

The section seems entirely defferential to a Chinese-centric point of view and ignores the heavy harassment from Chinese users toward non-Chinese Hololive members, that Chinese hololive was closed not because of harassment on bilibili but in order to exit the market to remove involvement with China to protect their Japanese talents, and also an overemphasis on "one china policy" even though they didn't actually endorse that concept. Ergzay (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)