Jump to content

Talk:Manatsu no Sounds Good!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fan detail

[edit]

The verified prose information in this article comes down to this: "On December 30, 2012, the song won the Grand Prix at the 54th Japan Record Awards...The single became AKB48's bestselling single, selling a record 1,616,795 copies in first week. In August 2012, the single was certified 2 million by RIAJ.[1]" The rest is--well, you see. Track listings for a million versions and editions, a few hundred lines about which members "participate" (whatever it is that they do--hop around in bathing suits, I suppose) in and on which versions of which tracks et cetera. I also removed the external links, which were nothing but spam links. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article on the Oricon website says there are 4 editions (they don't count the theater version) and says that there is a voting ticket included: [1]. Here is the list of members participating on the title track: [2] (on the Oricon website). I believe at least one of these articles was used in this article as a source before you deleted it. Here is the list of the members who participated on the track "Gugutasu no Sora": [3]. I can find more, but I think King Records and the official AKB48 website can be used as a source too in this case. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the different versions, adding the dates of the released singles may help along with those King Records and Oricon references. You can mention the voting ticket as part of their promotional strategy. You can combine the Type-A vs. Type-B track listings if they only differ by the third single to reduce redundancy. The members should be listed according to the single's credits, or as quoted by the Oricon article. That is, it should not include which girls made a debut with that single, unless the album or article makes an effort to display that information. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have combined the tracklists for all the editions if I knew how. I think it can be done, but I don't know how to make such a list visually comprehensible. It seems that it would be impossible using the Tracklisting template. --07:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A quote from Talk:AKB48. I didn't know the discussion continued here.

A short overview of Drmies' edits to "Manatsu no Sounds Good!".

  • Before: A nice stub. Nothing much, but everything necessary is there. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, and the article provides.
  • After:
    1. The Japanese title of the single is incorrect
    2. The background section, mostly sourced from King Records, was removed. The official source was perfectly acceptable in this case cause there was no reasonable doubt that the information was correct. For more reliable sources, see the discussion at the talk page: Talk:Manatsu_no_Sounds_Good!#Fan detail.
    3. The tracklisting is incorrect (to say the least)
    4. The members (personnel) section was removed. At least the lists for two songs were sourced from Oricon at the time of removal. Also, everything can be sourced from the liner notes (a photo on Flickr). Moreover, Drmies himself said that "Track and personnel lists usually don't need verification" (in this edit).
    5. The links to the record label site were removed

I think the "after" version is a complete nonsense, it's desinformation.

End of quote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you should not have removed the track listings of all the various editions of the single. I have restored this content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up the Release paragraph in prose and moved the King Records references there. Also cleaned up the track listing. The reference titles could use some cleanup, and need some articles and description as to why they decided to make so many versions, and how many of each kind. Do they count separately or combined towards the RIAJ 2 million? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the reference titles. It looks like all the different versions count towards the aggregate. It's kind of like when a magazine decides to release an issue with different collectible covers. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Personnel list, that can be written in a short prose paragraph. You can write that it includes members from Team A, Team K, Team B, Kenkyūsei at the time, with guest members from the other groups. Add a reference to cite album notes where you can refer to the inside page of the back cover for full credits of the participants. If the members list for the single was posted in Oricon Style, you can also reference that. Alternatively, you can just list the members as you would the cast of a movie: Team A, Team K, Team B each get bullets and then followed by a comma list. The other members can be listed as one bullet line with commas as well. So the single would have just four bullets or smashed into one paragraph like the Oricon Style article. Don't worry about listing all the B-side single members (only do the writer credits) until those songs become notable. Hopefully this will keep the article concise while still being informative and encyclopedic. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total sales?

[edit]

The unsourced/undated figure for total sales in the Oricon Charts section is given as 1,822,220, but the article text says the single had 2 million certified sales by August 2012. I suggest removing the figure from the Oricon Charts section, as without a date, it is totally meaningless, and clearly contradicts the 2 million claim earlier in the article text. --DAJF (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon counts physical sales. RIAJ certifies shipments. The difference either hasn't been sold yet (unlikely, the single was certified 2 Million immediately) or wasn't sold in the shops that count for Oricon. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that discrepancy will still need to be mentioned in the article itself or explained via a footnote. As there is no indication whether the 1,822,220 figure is for the first day of release, for August 2012, or for 1 March 2013, it is unfortunately meaningless, so I have removed it until it can be reliably sourced and explained. --DAJF (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we shoud mention it. It seems to be outside the scope of this article. It is the same for all Japanese releases. Should we add the same footnote to every article, then? It seems excessive. Everything should to be explained in the Oricon and RIAJ articles first (how Oricon counts sales, what RIAJ gives certificates for, etc.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the addition to footnotes and release sections, including the verbiage regarding the followup single that shipped 2.3 million copies. You can remove them if it is too detailed. It does not need to be expounded upon in the lead sentence beyond the RIAJ. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The original Japanese title is still incorrect. Just saying. --Moscow Connection (talk)

You can fix it on the first sentence, but leave the article title alone. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Titles of media. I've done an attempt based on Simarut Lapisatepun's recent edits. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simarut Lapisatepun corrected it today. Finally. I wanted to see how much it would take anyone to notice. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revert your edits because they misinterpreted some info that Simarut Lapisatepun added. I'm sorry, I don't have time to correct it. I've said before that it is really advisable to learn more about the group before you write about it. The situation with the Japanese title of the single is another example of what people not knowing basic things about AKB48 can do inadvertently. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your change. Is it because of the italics? The asterisk should be in the footnote. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Mayu Watanabe wasn't the center. And you added it back again: [4]. This is absolutely wrong, sorry. Please re-read what Simarut Lapisatepun wrote. He wrote that Mayu Watanabe was the center at the Japan Record Awards. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The center positioner verbiage should not be in the lead paragraph. If you want to point out who was in the center at the award ceremony, or who spoke on behalf of accepting the award, detail that in the reception section as you would if they were performing it on television in the Appearances/live performances section. Same thing with Atsuko Maeda's graduation date. If AKB48 announced Maeda's graduation date ahead of the single release you can detail that in the production and release sections. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You added wrong info. A sentence you wrote was completely untrue. I reverted cause it was wrong. But you re-added the sentence about Mayu Watanabe being the center in this single: [5] and this time you also added: "The single also features Atsuko Maeda's final recording with the group", which again misinterpreted what the article said before. It does not "also feature" Atsuko Maeda, she is on the title track. These are examples how you can inadvertently add something untrue to AKB48 articles if you don't know much about the group and don't actually read the sources. I'm sorry, but this is the truth. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I haven't re-read the AKB48 article since 2 or 3 weeks ago. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the corrections; I appreciate that. I'm merely trying to place that information in the right spot and fix the English, but apparently the wording was wrong. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem. Your English is great, you just need to be more careful. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for the exclamation mark in the title? I have tagged the song on my devices with the Halfwidth and fullwidth forms version ("！" instead of "!") which can sometimes be mistaken as a space before the ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.252.134 (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Members

[edit]

I tweaked the verbiage in the lead single. Please remove (first) from the members list unless the track explicitly lists (first) on the credits as such. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it now. The liner notes don't say this, just the Oricon article does. The info is already present elsewhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

off-vocal version?

[edit]

Does off-vocal version mean instrumental? Do they sing the backup vocals on those tracks or is it purely the music? -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead and use the term, just link the first occurrence to off vocal which happens to be a redirect to Karaoke. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be redirected to instrumental, then. See "オフヴォーカル", "off vocal" and "instrumental" are basically synonyms for Japanese CD releases. There's a list of other terms different record labels use for their releases to mean the same thing. Or, most probably, not exactly the same thing, cause it's obvious that there are many ways to make an instrumental version. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've compared the "off-vocal" versions on this single and a few others. I think they are just the same exact tracks without the main vocals. So, yes, I think they are best described as "karaoke versions". Whether there are backing vocals or not, I don't know. There are bits and pieces, but I have no way to tell if those are synthesized or not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I compared a bit more. These are instrumentals. No backing vocals. If there are backing vocals, they are not on the "off-vocal" versions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay if it shows just the Japanese term then change it to what best fits. The off vocal link on Wikipedia redirects to Karaoke. When I think of Instrumental I think of more of a muzak version where the melody is played in place of the vocals. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay like this, one link to Instrumental and other to Karaoke. Everyone will decide for themselves. I will change it if I suddenly have an idea of what is best. You are free to change it too if you listen to some "off-vocal" versions and come to some conclusion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon vs. Billboard charts

[edit]

Can someone clean up the Oricon and Billboard charts and subcategories? -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved it myself and added references. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manatsu no Sounds Good!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manatsu no Sounds Good!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manatsu_no_Sounds_Good!&oldid=1203867352"