Talk:Ayumi Hamasaki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
1, 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Archive
Due to the length of discussion page I have archive all the older issues that have been resolve. — ■~∀SÐFムサ~■ =] Babashi? antenna? 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Too many images?
I don't know, but isn't even one image per section too much? Featured articles such as Mariah Carey's and Celine Dion's have no more than five images in the whole article. Thanatous (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the current image usage. She goes through a lot of looks, it's kind of interesting to see the changes. TJRC (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Further to the above, I think now there are way too few images. I don't see a problem with the addition of the audio samples, but most of those edits also deleted images, and I think they went overboard. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reworded
I shorten some paragraphs and took out some parts that were unnecessary, such as Guilty (or anything else) being release in CD and CD+DVD format (there's a reason why the album has a page of its own.) I also notice that while the other parts in her career section seem to get to the point, her 2007-2008 section seem to be very lengthy and wordy. 206.40.103.156 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Her 2007-2008 section is a bit wordy...hm...maybe I can fix it the next time I edit. Too peachy (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Combined "Music career" and "Personal life" sections
As featured articles such as those of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion do not have separate sections for their respective music careers and personal life (or life outside their music careers), I merged the "Music career" and "Personal life" sections into a "Life and music career" section. Thanatous (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reliable references?
Some of the citations used in the article appear to be self-published, and according to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning reliable sources, should probably not be used. However, Celine Dion's article, a featured article, utilizes a self-published source to reference her sales figures. Should the information that cites self-published websites as their sources be removed, or what?
The references:
http://www1.coralnet.or.jp/
http://www.musictvprogram.com/
http://ampedasia.com
Thanatous (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Technically they should be removed. But this article has a lot of reference issues. Way too many unnecessary and bad references. For example referencing yesasia.com to prove and album/single had a CD+DVD version. Unnecessary and it makes the article look like editors are more concerned with having an large amount of references listed than the actual validity of these references. Same goes with the Amazon Japan references and references to her official website for release dates. The release of singles really shouldn't be referenced unless there is a dispute as to when it was released. The TIME magazine references need to be correctly combined. I see 2-3 references of it that are referring to the same page. Hedatari (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. But I don't think the citations concerning the format and date of her releases need to be removed (especially since this article contains a biography of a living person); the only information that need not be cited is general common knowledge, subject-specific common knowledge, and the plot of the subject. As for the TIME references, I can see multiple references, but each one is to a separate page of the article. Thanatous (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just saying referencing releases of singles/albums is silly. It's common knowledge. You can easily obtain that information anywhere compared to other subject matters covered. If the references are a must I would think it's because the single/album release is so rare that a reference is needed to prove the existence of the single/album... and there's also references to fansites like Eneabba.net and Tsunku.net,... to me it starts to look messy when things like a single/album need a reference. She may be a living artist, but not referencing the release date next to every single/abum isn't damaging to her as an artist. I would think just putting one reference next to her discography header would be sufficient. Anyways these are just suggestions and I am far from an expert on this. But it's nice to see someone working on her article. Keep up the work. Hedatari (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, you're right; other featured articles don't have citations for the release dates of the artists' releases. Tsunku.net, however, appears to be Tsunku's official site (the site is the only site that claims it, and this site seems to agree.)
- I'm just saying referencing releases of singles/albums is silly. It's common knowledge. You can easily obtain that information anywhere compared to other subject matters covered. If the references are a must I would think it's because the single/album release is so rare that a reference is needed to prove the existence of the single/album... and there's also references to fansites like Eneabba.net and Tsunku.net,... to me it starts to look messy when things like a single/album need a reference. She may be a living artist, but not referencing the release date next to every single/abum isn't damaging to her as an artist. I would think just putting one reference next to her discography header would be sufficient. Anyways these are just suggestions and I am far from an expert on this. But it's nice to see someone working on her article. Keep up the work. Hedatari (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. But I don't think the citations concerning the format and date of her releases need to be removed (especially since this article contains a biography of a living person); the only information that need not be cited is general common knowledge, subject-specific common knowledge, and the plot of the subject. As for the TIME references, I can see multiple references, but each one is to a separate page of the article. Thanatous (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Technically they should be removed. But this article has a lot of reference issues. Way too many unnecessary and bad references. For example referencing yesasia.com to prove and album/single had a CD+DVD version. Unnecessary and it makes the article look like editors are more concerned with having an large amount of references listed than the actual validity of these references. Same goes with the Amazon Japan references and references to her official website for release dates. The release of singles really shouldn't be referenced unless there is a dispute as to when it was released. The TIME magazine references need to be correctly combined. I see 2-3 references of it that are referring to the same page. Hedatari (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re-writing "Music career" section
...per the peer review here. (Modeling the article after Celine Dion's, per the third-to-last bullet in the review.) Thanatous (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Audio samples?
As other featured articles do, should we include audio samples of Hamasaki's songs in the article? Thanatous (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you are going to, then only do the songs that she is most notable for. Though it isn't necessary, Hamasaki is very influential in Japan and hearing a bit of her a music will be good. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Use templates, please
{{cite web}} and {{cite news}} exist for a reason. Don't substitute them. Now it will take ages to make all the basic links into citations with the template again >:-( -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Are the templates really necessary? According to Wikipedia's style guide on the matter, the use of templates isn't strictly required. The disuse of templates allows for things like notes to be added to the citation. (For example, if the web page being cited is particularly long, a note added to a citation could point out the section appropriate to the citation) Also, other featured articles like S.H.E's do not use templates. Thanatous (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- That they don't use it doesn't mean you shouldn't. I can point you thousands of featured articles where they do use citation templates.
- In fact, the templates exist to standardize the citation format. If we change the Retrieved field to be inside the date, you would have to manually change them all. Having templates make the updates automatically. I suggest to go back to template use. I would really hate to revert all your changes to the last one with the citation templates. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the templates should be used. However, please do not revert otherwise worthy changes solely for the internally cosmetic value of using templates rather than fully expanded citations. Content first, cosmetic second. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- All right then. I've re-installed the citation templates save for the Kaidan reference. (The website pointed to in the reference is a Flash site, and I thought it would be helpful having a note annexed to the citation explaining which part of the website was being referenced.)Thanatous (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the templates should be used. However, please do not revert otherwise worthy changes solely for the internally cosmetic value of using templates rather than fully expanded citations. Content first, cosmetic second. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are the templates really necessary? According to Wikipedia's style guide on the matter, the use of templates isn't strictly required. The disuse of templates allows for things like notes to be added to the citation. (For example, if the web page being cited is particularly long, a note added to a citation could point out the section appropriate to the citation) Also, other featured articles like S.H.E's do not use templates. Thanatous (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rephrasing lengthy paragraphs
I reworded the 2007-2008 section, which I also change to 2007-present. I also deleted the fact about her and her boyfriend breaking up as though it is notable, it does not have any effect in her career (thank God!). I also deleted the CD+DVD info about her A Best 2 albums, as that part can simply be put on the two albums' own page. As for the part about Guilty debuting at #1 but getting the #2 spot overall due to Oricon's practise of blending two weeks as one, please make it as a footnote instead of actually putting it into the paragraph, as it will only make the section seem wordy. Though describing the album is good, when describing the tracks each separately, please do that on the album's actual page. Before anyone starts reverting my edits, editing in their own, or whatsoever, please compare to those of other artists (such as Mariah Carey and Celine Dion)and try to see if the information you're putting back or on there is worth it. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Actually, the article is modeled after Celine Dion's, per a suggestion in this article's peer review. As you'll notice in the [Dion's] article, Dion's personal life is discussed (the section is titled "Life and Music Career"); moreover, individual tracks (though not all) are described. However, I agree that the CD+DVD info should be omitted, and the part about Oricon's only having fifty-one weeks can be put in a footnote. Thanatous (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hamasaki's birth name
What is Hamasaki's official birth name? 濱崎歩 or 浜崎あゆみ? I know that in most cases, the given name is written in kanji; however, female names are mainly written in hiragana (at least according to about.com.) Also, is 濱 still used? I thought that it had been replaced by the shinjitai 浜. Thanatous (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Her birth name is 濱崎歩. Doesn't it say that in the article anyway? (And the Japanese article?) I think hiragana usage is a pretty recent thing. And yeah, apparently 濱 has been changed to 浜. That's the character used on her official site...Eugeniu B (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A few comments
I started to look this over, but I realized that I won't have time to review such a long article. A few things I wanted to mention from the beginning, though:
- Near the end of the lead "her first original eight studio albums seems redundant" - are both "first" and "original" necessary?
- Reference 6 should be moved to after a punctuation mark.
- Is a reference available forher mother always working and her grandmother being the primary caretaker?
- What did she confess to Matsuura? Her truancy?
- "Unpretentious" is an awkward word choice. It seems to border on POV.
My biggest concern was the coding problem in the "Childhood and early endeavors" section. Please look at the "Time" reference after "not well-received by the general public." Because the reference doesn't end, almost one full paragraph does not appear in the text of the article. I hope this helps with a few of the initial concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
The GA review is here. It's only partial, but those concerns should be addressed first before I go on to review the rest. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lengthy?
Do we really need one paragraph to describe the tracks on her albums in here? There's a reason why all her albums have a page of their own. In here, it's just taking up a lot of space and making her article seem long. In addition, her personal life doesn't really affect her career that much so I don't think we really need it. I mean, unless the relationship put her career on hold or something like that then I guess we could keep it, but Hamasaki draws a line between her personal and professional life anyway so it doesn't really overlap each other. I know it's supposedly modified after Celine Dion's but still...There's a lot of things in here that's unnecessary and it's just taking up a lot of the room. Her career section also seem to just go on and not get to the point at all niether. 206.40.103.36 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- The section is titled "Life and music career," not just "Music career," so information concerning her personal life would not exactly be off-topic in it. Perhaps the sections concerning the albums are a bit lengthy; however, let's get the opinion of the other editors first, as I personally do not think they're unduly long. Finally, what do you mean by "get to the point"? The article is not really trying to "make a point." This is an encyclopedia, so it's just a collection of facts, not personal opinion. Thanatous (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant by "get to the point" is that the article just seem to over explain things just a little bit. Did Hamasaki did this, or did she do that? Does it really matter if Hamasaki stated that she broke up with her lover on her website? Can it just read "despite much speculation by the press of a possible marriage, Hamasaki and Nagase ended their seven-year relationship..." or something like that? Does it really matter if "Mirrorcle World" has two press edition containing one of the same b-side and two different b-sides because it's Hamasaki's 10th anniversary in the music industry? That's what I meant. 206.40.103.95 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Over explain"? Sometimes, Hamasaki did "this" and "that." None of Hamasaki's previous singles (prior to "Mirrorcle World") had been released in such formats, so it is probably worth noting. However, you are probably right concerning the paragraph on her breakup with Nagase; I'll edit it. Thanatous (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant by "get to the point" is that the article just seem to over explain things just a little bit. Did Hamasaki did this, or did she do that? Does it really matter if Hamasaki stated that she broke up with her lover on her website? Can it just read "despite much speculation by the press of a possible marriage, Hamasaki and Nagase ended their seven-year relationship..." or something like that? Does it really matter if "Mirrorcle World" has two press edition containing one of the same b-side and two different b-sides because it's Hamasaki's 10th anniversary in the music industry? That's what I meant. 206.40.103.95 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)