Talk:AKB48

About the notation of "Akihabara48"

AKB48 (Japanese pronunciation : ēkēbī fōtī-eito) is not a contraction of "Akihabara48". In meaning "AKB" admittedly derives from "Akiba" which means "Akihabara" (formerly called "Akibahara"), but this group's official name is "AKB48", not "Akihabara 48". See official site's Q&A-1 (http://www.akb48.co.jp/q_a/) or Japanese Wikipedia (AKB48). CutieNakky 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to AKB48. There was obviously a mistake made by the creator of the article, who wasn't really a big fan... Staka2ont 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

....

88.105.28.184 13:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tickets

According to the header of the article 250 tickets are created. Of these a) 100 are reserved for members of the AKB48 fan club and AKB48 mobile members, b) 115 tickets for people in general, c) 10 tickets for each group is reserved for women, elementary and junior high school students and family or couples and d) 15 tickets are reserved for people not living in the Kanto region of Japan. If you add up 100 + 115 + 10 + 15 you get 240, which is 10 short. If you interpret c) as 10 tickets for each group, then c) is 30 tickets, which ends up being 10 over. Which is it? Tweisbach (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Song titles etc

Aren't these all he wrong way round? The manuals of style for Japanese related articles would advocate the romanised title followed by the Japanese, would it not? --218.143.102.89 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AKB48 discography split

Could we try to split that section into a new page, just like what Ayumi Hamasaki has (Ayumi Hamasaki discography)? I think the content is a bit too large to be fit into an artist page that it should be moved into a new page... みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There you go. The discography page needs some serious work though, especially in the infobox (I've got those numbers completely wrong) and the millionty two DVDs they have. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't move the filmography section, it's been suggested to split it to AKB48 discography as well. I'll do it now. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Graduation

I'm sure this article makes perfect sense to anyone under 30 years old but Ive no idea what is meant by 'graduated'. Are the 3 teams akin to a league so you can move up to the best 'A' team? Does graduate just mean you've made it into a team or does it mean you've been sacked/retired? Thanks in advance for clearing this small matter up so patiently Weavehole (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)weavehole

The whole graduation idea is not unique to AKB48, it also exists in the Hello Project family if I'm not mistaken. If someone is graduating it means that they have leaving the group and will no longer be a member of AKB48. This is a bit different from being fired (as in the case of Kikuchi Ayaka), or being dismissed. Graduations are usually held as celebration of that member's contribution to the group (members traditionally say "congratulations" when someone graduates) .

Additionally, Teams A, K, B do not have any sort of hierarchy between them, and they are quite equal. Team A was originally the first team to be created but after member shuffles, it is just like the other teams with a mix of veterans and newcomers. The only sort of "B" team would be the research students. They are not considered to be full members, rather just "trainees" who wait for their chances to be promoted to one of the three main teams. mouselmm (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen & Elizabeth

The unit "Queen & Elizabeth" is not an official AKB48 unit (as you can see that AkiP didn't wrote the lyrics for their song; the whole production team is unrelated). Same as e.g. Masuda Yuka's Stargazer or the CD Manami Oku did release. How could we make this more clear/ visible w/o cluttering it up too much (in the units chapter but also in the related links box)? tokai/ binaryriot (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanorama

Japanorama is a series of documentaries presented by Jonathan Ross, exploring various facets of popular culture and trends of modern-day Japan. There was interviewed in Season 2 Episode 2 on September 14, 2006. I think think should be added in Media Prof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf6_6aqlnVQ&feature=related & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanorama#Series_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.104.44 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:AKB48Theater.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AKB48Theater.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

History - 2011

the 2011 section is too larger than other years, so the section is required to summarize. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's just that so many things have happened this year. Why delete information? Moscowconnection (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

because I think that the amount of 2011 section and other year sections are unbalanced.(especially (2007+2008)<2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puramyun31 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to do it now. Not like that. I think it should be done only when rewriting the whole article. By someone who aims for the Good Article status. I've thought about reworking the article myself but it would take weeks, I'm not ready yet. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rumi Yonezawa & Natsumi Hirajima

Rumi Yonezawa & Natsumi Hirajima have released a statement on the AKB48 offical blog, stating that they are leaving AKB48.

This coincides with the discovery of the private twitter & mixi acounts of the two, in which pictures suggesting that they were both in relationships were discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.136.34.68 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace of Rina Hirata

The official AKB48 website lists Rina Hirata has having been born in Fukuoka [1]. A respectable journalistic source, the Washington Post, says she was born in Arizona [2]. There has been discussion among fans [3] for some time about whether she was born in the U.S. or just raised there. It is understandable that AKB48 would want to present all the girls as having been born in Japan, but which source is to be believed? Should this be denoted somehow in the article? -Etoile ✩ (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! Anyway, both sources look equally credible. The fans discussion aside (which is not very credible in the first place), I think we should drop an email to the Washington Post editor for an inquiry. Anybody knows who to email to?--Lionratz (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good article! I'm gonna rewrite the lead now using it! And it looks like the author read the Wikipedia article, too. As for Rina Hirata's birthplace, I don't think it's that important. We can add it as a footnote.--Moscowconnection (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the info as a footnote. And thank you again for finding the article. I liked how clearly and simply the idea of graduations and auditions was explained there, so I added a sentence about that, and I also rewrote the lead a bit.--Moscowconnection (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to this article

To improve this article (possibly for a GA nomination), I intend to make major changes to this article. These includes

1. Adding "Concept", "Reception" and "Impact on popular culture" sections
2. Copyediting the history section
3. Reducing the size of the lead
4. Cleaning up the references (fixing up broken leads, removing over-referencing problems, standardize formatting of references)
5. Finding more references to use

If you have any other suggestions on how to improve this article, please add them below. Any assistance will be very much appreciated. Thanks!--Lionratz (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like what you did. The lead as I wrote it was a complete article by itself. You could just read the lead and understand everything. Now I find it uncomprehensible again, sorry. In the second sentence, it mentions "the group's theater", what's "the theater"? You split the explanation into a new section. I'll put it back now. As for the info about elections, i think it was okay to split it. Moscowconnection (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• I changed the lead back to as it was before. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better than the new version. I really think that we should explain everything in the lead. In fewer words, but everything. I'll rewrite it again and make it more concise. You are welcome to rewrite it too, surely. And I think that the sentences about how popular the group is should come first. If you want to create a "Reception" section, do, but please don't delete the info about sales from the lead. I have some ideas about creating new sections too. Let's make it a "good article". Moscowconnection (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I also think that you misinterpreted the "idols you can meet" concept. You should read the Reuters article that was my source. You left it as a reference but changed the meaning of the sentence I wrote. All idol groups have handshake events. Moscowconnection (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I rewrote the lead again. There are repeated words, but we can rewrite it again and again. I know that (if we aim for a GA status) expressions like "enormous popularity" must go eventually. But in general, I think the lead should look the way it looks now. And a GA should be entertaining, too. Moscowconnection (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Many apologies for the problems with the lead. I have been in a rush yesterday, so I might not have properly transferred information. However, I would like to add that the lead cannot be a "complete article by itself" like you mentioned. A lead in Wikipedia article is merely a summary of the hold article, not a place where readers find new information. For more detailed explanation on the role of a lead and what to include in it, please refer to this. Therefore, the lead like it is now is not exactly acceptable.

Additionally, you are right to say that words like "enormous", which constantly appear throughout the article, must go. An "interesting" article can also be neutral. There are also many other minor problems, like referencing, that needs to be solved as well.

Last but not least, thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I believe that we can cooperate together by helping to cross-check each other's edits so that any mistakes will be ratified immediately. I look forward to working with you on the article! Happy editing--Lionratz (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and the main point is that the lead summarizes the article's contents. But we don't really have a proper article yet. I suggest we leave the lead as it is now and cover all the matters it covers in other sections. We should not cut, but copy parts from the lead into new sections. Moscowconnection (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• As for the word "enormous", you must admit that their popularity is actually enormous, so we probably can find a source for that. The abovementioned article in the Washington Post says "AKB48 is huge". We can put it as a source. Moscowconnection (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Compare the current lead with The Beatles, by the way. It even happens to have the word "enormous" in it. It's just a coincidence, I didn't read the article before now.  :) Moscowconnection (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's you turn now. I can see you rearranged some sections already. I had been thinking about creating a "Musical style" section for a long time, so I did it. I know that what I wrote about their style and image is unsourced, but it is easily sourceable. I just wanted to create an outline for the new sections. But it's a mess now, you are welsome to rename/split/merge/rearrange any sections. Moscowconnection (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

For all the information on this page, I wouldn't mind seeing a new section on criticisms or controversies surrounding the group. The departure/"graduation" of Atsuko Maeda resulted in an article in the Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fd20120415pb.html) that touches on some important points; issues like Yasushi Akimoto being Machiavellian, using the structure of the group as a sort of "puppy mill" (my words) of churning out mediocre talent, purposefully marketing AKB48 to pre-adult young males using sexually suggestive material. Without even going into a discussion about the concept of Japanese idols (in this case, of the female variety), the Japan Times article talks about the sheer cruelty of these popularity contests on the girls themselves (seriously, this is like high school drama magnified a thousand times), as well as the fact that these girls don't demonstrate sexual self-awareness (because that would be too intimidating to their young male fans). Traveliter (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I have been thinking of such a section to balance the coverage of this article. Another controversy: Risque AKB48 commercial draws fire for lesbian overtones--Lionratz (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. It's the "Western" view of things, and, if added, it should be marked as such. And I find these repeated articles in Japan Times offensive and tendentious. --Moscowconnection (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I buy into the view that criticism of AKB48 comes only from "western people". In fact, from reading Japanese articles, I find that there are also many people in Japan that holds this view. Anyways, it is our duty as Wikipedians to present a balanced view on a subject, whether we find them objectionable or not. Thus, this section should exist to balance the strongly positive coverage in this article.--Lionratz (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've found some criticism in Japanese. What's interesting, they are citing the very same Yasushi Akimoto's CNN interview, but still... I will be adding it. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The AFP story says the "majority of the 116 complaints" to the government broadcasting agency for March were about this ad. Even if Japanese do not complain much, there must be more than 59 who like to complain. What ad got the majority of complaints for January or February? This is PR or a news peg, not a story about something real. Since it got coverage it can certainly be in article all the same. Kauffner (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point. The scandal is good, nevertheless. Intense, even. Much better than Aimi Eguchi story that, as I first thought, failed to surprise anyone, but yet somehow found its way to the news all over the world. I'm out of controversies for today, sadly. Do you know some more? Moscowconnection (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be expanding the article rather chaotically. I wrote about the reason lower. I'm searching for sources on all Japanese idols, preferably for any essays or at least generalizing sentences. When I find something research-like about AKB48, I will expand the article using it as a source. At the present stage, let's just add everything non-trivial we find. We can always rewrite it later. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I did it. I created a new section called Controversies. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionratz, I think you should expand the article instead of copyediting what's already there. Since you are relatively new to the group, your interpretations are often wrong. If you continue like that, the article may well eventually pass GA, cause people there don't know anything about AKB48, but it will be useless and contain loads of factual errors. I may not be able to work on the article until autumn. I suggest you read another wikis dedicated to AKB48 to see what they consider important and add what's missing here (note: I'm not telling Lionratz to copy from other wikis, just to read them and then find reliable sources for any key parts that are missing here). Add new info, not just reword. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(This comment was about you rearranging the history, combining completely unrelated paragraphs with months of missing history between them.) Okay, I've decided to rework a history a little bit myself. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The history section is already too long. I combined paragraphs because some events obviously are not important enough to warrant 1 entire paragraph. And as for the mergers, I am trying to bring the number of paragraphs down to the minimum. Most of other famous groups biographies do not have 1 paragraph for each passing year. (See The Beatles or U2- both FA articles). Granted, they are not similar to Japanese idol groups, but I cannot find any idol group's article that reaches a benchmark level that we can use. I concluded that it would be best if we model AKB's article on them. As for the "factual errors" you mentioned, please point them out to me and I will immediately correct them (or even better, correct them yourself). They are not intentional and I apologize for that. However, I don't believe that these errors are so severe that you must undo the whole section--Lionratz (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just telling you that simply copyediting what's already there is useless. A person who writes the history of a band, should know the history first. You want to make the history section look good instead of actually improving it. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Moscowconnection, can you explain why you undone all my edits? For the discography section, I agree that singles should be included. However, I do not feel the need to classify the singles as "indie" or whatsoever, since readers can see for themselves in the discography page. I also based the list I made on the article U2. As for the rearrangement of sections, I believe that sections like sister groups, reception etc. should be after the members list. Who wants to know about the popularity before even knowing who the group is? Perhaps we can leave the issue to someone neutral to decide on this later. For the Nogizaka46 controversy, I don't believe that it should have a writeup here. What does it have to do with AKB48? Many apologies for violating that copying rule, but really, the information should not be here in the first place.

You are formally right about Nogizaka46, I just think that it makes the section more complete and more interesting. It is commonly perceived like another of AKB48's groups. I understand that you position. Let's just leave it for now, if you don't mind. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any logical reason to include the information about the Nogizaka46 choreography controversy on the AKB48 page. Even if some people mistakenly percieve them as "another of AKB48's groups" that doesn't cause grounds for a controversy completely unrelated to AKB48 to be included on AKB48's article. I really think you should stick to controversies that actually include the AKB48 group and their own members. Kaixa913 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

AKB48's singles are officially numbered. The numbers should stay. I don't understand why you want to make the list less clear, since the numbers aid visual comprehension. And below, you are assuming I'm a fan, and therefore as a fan I add some info that no one else needs. But the numbers are mentioned everywhere in the mass media. It's because of things like this I can assume that you lack some basic knowledge about the group. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Moscowconnection (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you discuss any attempted reverts here before really reverting edits because it is really demoralizing to find your edits undone without any explanation (even if they are seriously useless, in your opinion- tell me why, and if I agree, I will undo it myself asap). Here, I want to warn you that both of us are very close to having an edit war. (note: this is meant in good faith and is not a threat) I really do not want to get into a conflict with you and ruin both our reputations since we both share the common goals of improving this article and improving the coverage of Japanese pop culture in general. I also hope that you will take the fancruft guideline to heart, since as an AKB fan, you might have a different POV. I sincerely request that you view my edits in good faith and that my edits are accorded due respect. Lets work together constructively on this article. Thanks.--Lionratz (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I simply wanted to undo the edit when you copypasted the part about Nogizaka46. "Undo" wouldn't work, so I undid one additional edit (that I encorporated back later, saying that in the edit summary), only to find out than I need to undo another one first. I should just do that manually. There's no conflict, I didn't do it to discourage you. I disagreed this time, that's all. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the new section "Performances outside of Japan"? I created it to see how it looks. I simply copied everything there. I think the idea is good theoretically. But there are several photos from Paris and Los Angeles, the history section won't look good without them. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is find for now, but in future when AKB has more overseas exposure, we might have to merge the section.--Lionratz (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about removing from History the info that I copied into the "Performances outside of Japan" section? Moscowconnection (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I am not even sure if timelines like this is allowed. From what I read, timelines are part of articles, not a separate article by itself. Otherwise, it is used in the context of happenings in a year etc., not for articles like this. (see Wikipedia:Timeline) Oh, and I will retract what I have said about long history sections. Apparently, GA reviewers do not see that as a problem. Therefore, we should expand and copyedit the section, not split it into another article.--Lionratz (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Timelines are allowed. I created the AKB48 timeline to relieve the AKB48 article from trivial sentences. If we find something interesting to say about a particular release, it should be mentioned. If not, just move it to the AKB48 timeline. We have too many meaningless sentences about something having been released on a particular date. Surely, it would be best to find something good to say about each single, but it would take too much time. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we use articles on two Korean idol groups, Girls' Generation and TVXQ, as a model for this article in the absence of another better Japanese idol group article. Any objections? For starters, we can have a look at this and this for reasons on why they failed GA nomination and not repeat their mistakes.--Lionratz (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles aren't good enough. I'll try to read them but the Girls' Generation article doesn't look good at all. And I don't think we should copy other articles. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they are not the best. However, can you find any other idol groups that have better articles? I am not suggesting we copy, but suggesting that we emulate the structure and coverage of these articles, since we are basically groping in the dark about what to include now.--Lionratz (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is better: Big Bang (South Korean band). TVXQ also has some good sections at the bottom. But I'm just trying to find more interesting articles about the group. Moscowconnection (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any essays on the subject?

I'm searching for something research-like about AKB48 and other idol groups. Any reviews, something about similarities and differences between their musical styles and public images, etc. If you run into anything like that, please post a link here.

The problem of not having an overview of the idol group concept arose at Cute (Japanese band) (see Talk:Cute (Japanese band)#Members) when member colors and birth dates got removed as trivia and something unnecessary. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Center" and "Senbatsu"

How can we define these terms in English in a proper manner so that those who are not completely familiar of AKB48 will be able to understand how they run in this group? Because remember that WP:Fancruft. It would be better to come up with simpler terms for them so that others who are not familiar with J-pop or AKB48 can understand it. Like for example, instead of media senbatsu members, we could say that they are the 'featured' members of the single. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can define what it means by a "center" in the Concept section. I don't really think it is necessary though, because a center is literally that- the center of a stage performance or pv etc.--Lionratz (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We can say "selection", "media selection", "selection members", "media selection members". It sounds English enough to me. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Selection election" won't work in English, though. Moscowconnection (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting of Subgroups and collaborations section

I propose that we split the "Subgroups and collaborations" section of this article into another article entitled "List of AKB48 subgroups and collaborations". The current list looks very messy and long now and does not contain much information. We can improve on the list and add more information at the new article. Any comments?--Lionratz (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea. I only think we should leave a copy of the stand-alone units list here. And we will have to add many references to make sure it won't get merged back. (I don't want to make it look like canvassing, so don't vote, but look what they are doing to Cute timeline, which is a much larger page than "AKB48 subgroups and collaborations" is going to be.) Moscowconnection (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The section "Subgroups and collaborations" is not ready to be split into a separate article. Even in the main article, it makes very little sense and is virtually unreferenced. Op47 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oricon has got some interesting refs, though they are in Japanese. Moving this to a list might solve the problem of the section making "very little sense".--Lionratz (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Op47 is right. The process of splitting implies first having a part that can be an article on its own. So to split it formally by Wikipedia rules, you must expand it first. (As I understand it, you can write a completely new article "AKB48 subgroups and collaborations" from scratch any moment.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added {{expand section}} to the section. Until some expansion happens, I disagree with splitting. SocietyBox (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reshuffling and transfers announced on August 24

According to the official blog, reshuffling and transfers will NOT take in effect immediately, as Tomonobu Togasaki, GM of AKB48 mentioned

"現行チームでの活動がすぐに終了したり、移籍メンバーがすぐに移籍したりということはございませんので、ご安心ください。" ("Activities and performances with the current team will not finish, or the members whose transfers were announced will not be transferred, immediately, therefore please do not worry.")

Therefore, list of team members should be changed back. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I pasted the list back but I left the future composition of the group in the article. My argument is that people will come to Wikipedia for information about the reshuffle. --Moscowconnection (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Saed Yokota Erena

where is she? she is not list of akb members, not in kenkyuusei list, not in former members list. as if she is not ever was in akb48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.134.223 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• She has graduated to concentrate on her studies. I'm not 100% sure about the exact dates, but approximately she announced her graduation on September 25, a few days after the rock-paper-scissors tournament, and graduated on October 7. She should be in the former members list. No one wanted to erase all memory of her, it's a mix-up. It was a Japanese Wikipedia user who removed her without adding to the former members list: [4]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here, I've listed her with some additional info: List of former members of AKB48#Kenkyūsei. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

gojuon order???

Why are the names listed in gojuon order and not alphabetical order? Last time I looked this was English wikipedia and not Japanese. 182.249.242.160 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As the official website, the most reliable source of information, does so, I suppose. Only Japanese and Simplified Chinese websites are currently available, while English translation is only available through Google translation.--What can I do for someone?- (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They are listed in a certain order officially. It is the official order. The assumption that the alphabetical order would be okay is an original research. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, alphabetical order is not—and never will be—original research, so please toss that idea out the window as completely bogus. However, MOS:JA does support having them in gojuon order as there is a very specific reason for doing so (this is the order in which they are listed on the official website) and the article clearly explains this directly above the gojuon listing. There is nothing wrong with doing it this way when there is a very specific reason for doing so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is original research that gojuon order in Japanese equals alphabetical order in English for this particular group... or for everything, for that matter. It is original research to say the order doesn't matter and we can rearrange the list in the English Wikipedia. That's what I meant. AKB48 website is not an encyclopedia, there could have been various reasons to list the girls in this order. (I'm just defending my idea about original research. Thank you for supporting the main objective.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to think about it, my edit, i. e. the part about it being gojuon order, is original research. Feel free to change it to say just "listed in the order in which they are listed on the official website" or something like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what original research is, in the context of Wikipedia. Stating that a list which is gojuon order is in gojuon order is not original research. It is stating an obvious fact that no one can dispute. When something is so blatantly obvious, there is no research happening, original or otherwise. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It has not been stated officially / in reliable sources (at least, to my knowledge) that the order is gojuon order. Hence, it's original research to say it is. (Logically: I didn't read anywhere it's gojuon, I came to this conclusion myself. It's original research.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But I, too, think it's obvious they are listed in gojuon order. I would leave the sentence in the article, because I think Wikipedia readers will profit from knowing what order the members are listed in. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Moscowconnection, original research according to Wikipedia is publishing material that has never been posted anywhere else. Changing from the Japanese gojuon order to the English alphabetical order would not be a violation of the "No original research" policy. There exists a tenet that common sense should override any of these policies or guidelines where it is deemed fit. Switching to one order or the other is not a violation of WP:NOR, nor is it a violation to state that the order is of a particular type.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything not explicitly stated by reliable sources is original research. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Listing something in alphabetical order (or in gojuon order) is not ever original research. You are misinterpreting the policy. If you included things not in the list in the original source, that would be original research, but the order in which things are listed is not and can not be original research in this context. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

New editor randomly creating pages about AKB48 members

Could anyone please stop Obakechan (talk | contribs). The user has already created 4 articles: SNH48, Miori Ichikawa, and 2 articles about Yui Yokoyama: Yui Yokoyama and Yokoyama Yui. I posted on the user's talk page, but I don't know how to explain the matter properly. There must be some template messages for such situations. Please explain that the articles can't exist in Wikipedia the way the user created them. As a result, we will have a bunch of redirects that no one will want to expand into proper articles. (I, personally, won't. I've already did that for several redirected articles about AKB48 members, I had to write them from scratch anyway, and I think they should have been deleted instead of redirected.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to clear up that what I'm asking help with is to warn the user about not creating unsourced BLPs and about the necessity to prove notability. I don't think I can explain it to the user clearly in my own words. There must be some templates for that sort of thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I explained a bit to Obakechan, see User talk:Obakechan#Links to AKB48 members. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, it came to me that I can create some very bad articles about AKB48 members myself... There are quite a few members whose notability can be proven in a simple sentence... I didn't want to create short stubs, but since people need more articles about members... And since I don't have time to write long articles... --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AKB48 members range in age from what?

Since it looks like more than one person has wanted the article to state that AKB48 members range in age not from 14, but from 13, I decided to put the matter up for discussion. No sources which present in the article say "13". There is one member, Ryōka Ōshima (born on October 21, 1998) who was promoted to Team A when she was 13, but actually started her official activities as a full member and appeared on the website in the list of Team A members only on November 1, 2012, when she was already 14. I personally think "14" is correct. Actually, even if someone in AKB48 were 13, I would still be unsure whether to go with a general statement from a reliable source saying that members range in age from 14 or with a particular example of a member actually being 13. Simply because "the exception proves the rule". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add that there is indeed some inconsistency in how the article says there are 88 members (including trainees), but then doesn't take the trainees into the account when talking about the age range. But the problem is that, from what I see, the English-language press seems to like repeating that there are 90 members in the group, so we just go along with reliable sources. But if we count everyone towards the age range, then sooner or later someone will come and change 13 to 12 and 12 to 11. A newer example is Ayano Umeta (born on March 20, 1999), who became a 13th generation kenkyūsei in September 2011 at the age of 12. There was also Kayano Masuyama (born on February 10, 1994), who on December 5, 2005 at the age of 11 became a founding member of Team A. My opinion is that we shouldn't scare people with extreme examples and the way the article goes with generalized statements about "early teans" in the lead and says "14" in the Concept section is correct and true to the concept of the group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I said that "we shouldn't scare people with extreme examples", but I actually think that we may and maybe even should mention an extreme example somewhere in the article (was Kayano Masuyama the youngest AKB48 member ever?), but a general statement should still say "14". Also, I have added ages to the member list in the past, but was reverted by Lionratz, who believed that readers can just calculate the age of each member in their heads: [5]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

13 seems an acceptable age to use. Karen Iwata was promoted from Kenkyuusei to Team 4 on March 24th, 2012 during the Saitama Super Arena concert. She was 13 at the time, and didn't turn 14 until May 13th, 2012. I don't think it's possible to be 100% accurate on this since the age range of AKB is dynamic, that is, new members are continually added. I think how it is currently is more than acceptable. GrapperJ (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does the article say "13" now? Have someone changed it again without changing the source for the statement? --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the lead back to say "early teens" and another section to 14 according to the sources they use. Or they used the last time I checked. I will have to check again. The statements were changed obviously by the same person who changed it the previous time from a different IP. The IP was blocked on the very next day, by the way. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, since April 4 there's no one, not even "in the training", who is youunger than 14. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The two media sources cited say "early teens to mid-20s". I think that's a fair statement, and have updated the sections appropriately. Is there a minimum or maximum age requirement to be a member in the group? That would be good to include. Please cite reliable sources, including statements by the organizations themselves, or secondary media sources. You can use birth date and age template for members if the official websites want to post such information or make it a big deal. Regardless, the minimum age does not need to be dynamically updated. If you have an article that says in year Y, member X became the youngest to join the main group. In the tables you can list their birth dates in the column and make it sortable by age. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the change of "14" to "early teens". I already used the birth date and age template last year, but another editor removed the ages saying something like that they were easy to calculate in one's mind. I'm also afraid they will make the tables too wide. And to be honest, the article is such a mess that I'm afraid even to look. If no one adds ages, I will do it sooner or later. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bibliographic materials

For those interested, there is a new book released in October that covers AKB48 and Japanese idols in general. This should provide academic and research material that may be previously lacking from the article.

• Galbraith, Patrick W.; Karlin, Jason G., eds. (2012). Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-29830-9.

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

birthplace or hometown?

Can someone confirm that the locations mentioned are their birthplaces or their hometowns? How are they cited in the official sources? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They are cited as "出身地". I will change the tables to say "Prefecture of origin" now. I guess that is what is was meant to be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess google translate calls it birthplace, but prefecture is good if they don't detail beyond that and it doesn't get too detailed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, "出身地" doesn't say "prefecture", it says "place". "出身地" means the place where someone is from. But since there are usually no hometowns, only prefectures in their official profiles, I said they meant to say "prefecture". I think "of origin" would be better than "home" cause their home is Tokyo now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll throw in a footnote about 出身地. Does the official site list details beyond prefecture? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Member count

Please clarify in the article how the membership is officially counted for the group. I understand that originally there are 48 active members (3 teams of 16) (Guinness World Records). Some articles say 65-67. I have no idea where the 88 came from. Does that include Kenkyusei members? Is the 48 number still applicable? Is it like saying there are 9 people on the field for an MLB team, the 25 on the roster, or the whatever number of players that are on the DL or can be called up or down from the minors? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, Guinness World Records didn't count the trainees in 2010. They are in the list of members on the AKB48 site, though. And there was even a team for them called "Team Kenkyusei", but the team didn't last long and now they are simply "Kenkyusei" again. It will require a research to decide if we should count them. Probably, not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For the personnel section, I'd recommend subsections by Roster (Team A, Team K, Team B), then Kenkyusei, then Alumni (with main article link to former members ) or notable Guest/Honorary Members. If there are regular studio band musicians, composers, and arrangers, they can have a subsection as well. You can use a note column for any Roster members with concurrent membership with other groups. I'm not sure what the overseas members are. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a separate section for "concurrent positions" was created so that the tables didn't swell to epic proportions. Surely, the same could be achieved by adding a "Notes" table column. It would be much clearer and comprehensive and true to how the information is presented on the official site, but would it look better? The overseas members are the ones that are temporary transferred abroad to AKB48's sister groups in China and Indonesia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want a column, you can add footnotes (ref group="note")X is a concurrent member of group Y and Z. The separate subsection is fine too. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to the count, the official website did have an English page at one time in 2008 where they counted the "Trainees". http://www.akb48.co.jp/english/akimoto/ Although nowadays the links just go to a Google Translate of their official Japanese site. Early press releases such as the Reuters one and Guinness World Records still show an intent to have three teams of 16 not counting the Kenkyusei, so historically Akimoto might have pitched that idea. Then there's the theater banner itself which says "Presented by AKB48 & 48 girls". Do they change that banner as they update the member count? -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Election Rank, Generation

Is there an importance for documenting the members' election rank? Four rounds of numbers or X's or grey boxes seem fairly trivial to me. Would it be more informative to cite when they joined AKB48 as an official member (again, thinking of sports rosters), or provide date ranges if they left and came back? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the election ranks are important cause they show everyone's place in the group (who's in senbatsu, who's in undergirls, who's lower). The date of joining AKB48... Not the date, but the generation is certainly useful information and may be added. It will make the tables even bigger than now, though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As the group has released 30 singles and holds senbatsu (sosenkyo?? need consistent term) election events per certain single (single #22, and single #27), the chart will become unwieldy if it attempts to document all the rankings. Also, once elected, does the member retain that headline beyond the single? Who determines whether they are the captain of the team? The senbatsu? the producers? Also, how important are any rankings below, say, 10 or 20? If someone is ranked 38 for single #22 election, does that ranking follow them the rest of their career? If someone is ranked 61, are they in trouble of being demoted? What are undergirls? Kenkyusei? And what's lower than that? What about the rock-paper-scissors tournament? If that determines single #XX's headliners, the results of those would be just as noteworthy/trivial. The rankings can be relegated to the singles articles who can detail the headliners (the ones that appear on the album cover or liner note photos), even then no one really cares whether the other girls ranked 38 or 25 or x (grey box I'm assuming they didn't participate in the event). -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't predict what will happen in a couple of years, currently the rankings don't take much space and they are more important than the prefectures, for example. More important than a separate column for their ages. I'm starting to think that it is dangerous to expand the tables cause someone may decide that some info is not important and just delete everything. Actually, I think what you did is not needed cause I don't see why anyone would need to sort team members by their age. I would prefer to change it back.
Formally, an election decides the rosters for only one single. But informally, the consequences are much deeper. It is the group's management who chooses the girls for the following singles and it is obvious that it (actually, "he", Akimoto) takes the election rankings into account. Cause the fans have chosen their favorites.
On the other hand, the tournament results are random, a rock-paper-scissors tournament is random in its nature. This year, Haruka Shimazaki will certainly rise in ranks, but it's because more people noticed her after she won.
"Undergirls" is the name of the group that includes the girls who ranked high but not enough to reach the senbatsu. Currently, 17 to 32. The senbatsu performs the title track and the Undergirls sing the first coupling song.
Kenkyusei are trainees. Their aim is to get into the group, they are in training and they also act as theater understudies for full members. If a member is absent on the day of a theater performance, she is replaced by her understudy.
If someone is ranked 61, it is good, it is an achievement.
Team captains are decided by the management. Probably, by Akimoto himself.
"[N]o one cares" is not correct, everyone cares. In the last elections, the girl at 64th place received 5398 votes. 5398 votes are 5398 singles, which is close to 100,000 dollars in retail sates (2012 exchange rates) and enough for a single to rank at around 15th place on Oricon. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By "no one cares", I mean that it is still not notable to list the rankings of every member for the main article (of course someone's going to care, I'm trying to balance out WP:NOONECARES and WP:FANCRUFT). The election detail can still be relegated to the two singles articles: the single that contains the voting cards, and the single that the members were selected to perform. The 5398 singles can be noted in those articles with reception. On the main article, if you want to note the current senbatsu and captains among the roster, that would be fine. Look at the sports rosters like Los_Angeles_Lakers#Current_roster. They have their birthdays, current positions, and hometowns/colleges. Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol have (C) designations for captain. Their individual pages, if notable, can have their records, their accolades, and trading history. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Lakers rosters are great. They also have an interesting all-time roster. If we do something like that, I would still want to retain the current rank in this article. And I can create a separate article for every election pretty easily. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On that note, I left the election ranks in, and added some lead verbiage about the elections that need some help filling in. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am currently busy with Momoiro Clover Z and everything related, I won't be able to mentally switch to this. Not till next week for sure. The elections were held for the 13th, 17th, 22nd, and 27th singles. The 32nd is next. The tournaments were held for 19th, 24th, and 29th. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, before you do major edits here, propose them to the other editors. Moving Kaigai Iseki members to "Former members" is just plain wrong (no excuse :)). They are 1) still members of AKB48 (as listed on the official page) and 2) transferred temporarily. I appreciate most of your edits, but please be more precise. That said, please edit the table sections to the nice 4-square alignment that was used before. Also, do not turn this article into a expert-only article. Think of old granny that happens to read this. Nobody would know what a "generation audition" is without being a fan. Aside from the weird word combination. Many thanks! Rka001 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just realized, you were already correcting it. Many thanks on my behalf and thanks for your work. Rka001 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you throw in a reference link that shows the Kaigai Iseki are still on the main roster? I was going on the Japanverse reference concerning fifth elections that assumed that the four were former members of AKB48. Yeah, that generation verbiage is confusing. Hopefully my rewrite of the Membership section clarifies things; it certainly did for me! -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they are in the list of members on the official site. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking for that official site link. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with Rka001 that you should change the member section back to as it was before. I'm not reverting simply because I can see your good intentions. You see, I put a special effort in assuring that it looked good, that all the tables aligned properly in various screen resolutions, that they took as little space as possible, that they were approximately the same size. I tested them in different screen resolutions to see if they aligned. Now, they are a mess. I don't know what screen resolution you're using, but judging from what I see you won't be able to judge how it looks properly. There was also as little text as possible, it was done intentionally. I would suggest that you put all the explanation text you added there to the very front and changed the tables themselves back for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all wrong. The lead is wrong now too. The group did not originally consist of 48 members. In Rka001's words, "Please, before you do major edits here, propose them to the other editors". I think you don't know enough about the group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, assuming I don't know enough is WP:OWN Let's not go there! -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to a safe version. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the screen width, I will convert the birthdays to YYYY-MM-DD format. The point of that format is to address column limitations and it satifies MOS:DATE -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, you should not rely purely on my words when writing the article. Wikipedia is written basing on reliable sources. When I answered your questions here, my replies were not intended to be 100% precise. They were intended as a simple explanation for you. As long as they are unsourced, they don't have the right to be in the article. I really don't know what to do. I don't want to be mean and revert everything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The 48 members count is sourced by Guinness World Records. I will remove originally, but what's the point in having the number 48 in AKB48 without any context? -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It was in 2010. You can provide some context, but not in the second sentence in the lead. I'm looking at the result, there are so many wrong statements. And they are unsourced. And they are not precise. I don't know what to do, I will have to revert. You made a lot of good changes to the wording of the article, it is in much better literary english now, but it is incorrect. It is easier to revert and then to go through all of your changes and incorporate the good ones into the article. Also, Rka001 said you were making it into an expert article, but actually it is more of a beginner article now. Cause you added many incorrect statements. Many people new to the group will read the article and will have wrong information. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have converted the birthdays to YYYY-MM-DD format to address column width limitations and to make sure it satisfies MOS:DATE

The problem with the article is that before the rewrite, it had redundant paragraphs about elections, and terminology that only makes sense to "expert-only" and "people who know enough about the group" In attempting to explain the terminology, I have added references to articles. I don't see where I am majorly screwing up the article. I just checked the div markers and they are the same as before I formatted the tables for birthday columns. There may be statements that are incorrect because the references are making incorrect statements, such as Japanverse assuming that overseas transfers are not members.

Please mark the questionable wording with clarifies and citation needed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the official website: 87 Members (21 Team A + 20 Team K + 22 Team B + 4 Overseas + 20 Kenkyusei) -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, 87 then. To show you a couple of examples... There were too many statements that sounded wrong or unprecise. Like, "Supporting the AKB teams as understudies are the Research Students (Kenkyusei)", "Their Senbatsu General Election ranks are listed for four singles". There are too many. The way you worded it just didn't sound right. You even used the expression "Reseach Students" that was wrong proved to be incorrect. (It was deleted from the article years ago). The reason is that you don't know much about the group. I'm sorry for reverting, but I had to do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some changes by AngusWOOF back, by there are too many wrong statements to read and comprehend right now. Just a small example: [13]. Who are "patrons of the group's latest single" and what "ballots" did they receive? Why "four trainees"? There were also preliminary rounds. There are too many. I would really suggest that AngusWOOF proposed any major changes on this talk page first. --07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the verbiage concerning the patrons so it fit what was described by the Japan Times source. The four trainees is from the related wikipedia article, so that's a crap source, you can strike that if you haven't already. -AngusWOOF (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that there was no mention of any "patrons" before, you added it a few edits earlier. It was something strange, there are no "patrons".

I have reverted the article to April 15, so the part is not there anymore, as well as many other parts. There were many useful corrections, but your edits as a whole were wrong. I am sorry your edits lasted only one day. Thank you for posting on the talk page below. I won't reply right now cause I have to do other things and I don't want the proposal to look like it has been already replied to. I hope someone else participates in the discussion. I will join towards the end of the next week.

You should divide your proposals into smaller parts cause, as I said, the corrections as a whole may be misleading to readers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you may condense the info again, but without adding anything out of your head. I'm writing this because I thought that maybe that was not a good idea to stop you completely. It's just that you added many incorrect statements. Just condensing some info that is tagged as repetitive and adding something that sources clearly say would always be okay. Just be careful, please. Another example: Under Girls, Waiting Girls. etc. were temporary groups, just for a single or two. "Waiting Girls" was clearly a temporary name, it was used just one time on one single. So the way you wrote it was incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Under Girls and such be mentioned at all in History? Or can it stay with the singles articles that explicitly state those groups? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. They aren't a real group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reorganizing Concept and Membership section

I placed a copy of my rewrite of the Concept and Membership section in my User:AngusWOOF/sandbox. Please review that and mark it up with clarifies. I have removed the stuff about counting Senbatsu members, removed Waiting Girls and elections for the other singles that require better referencing. I also updated the member count per the official site which DOES count Kenkyusei as members. The "research students" term is used in Yahoo and other media references, but has been scrapped for the nihongo3 romanized term. There is no more Team 4; they disbanded according to the calendar. The Kenkyusei still fit the definition of understudy; I really don't think that needs to be described in detail beyond that term. As stated before, I believe this should remove the redundancy of the original Concept and Personnel sections, as well as clarify the different AKB48-like jargon terms like Kenkyusei, Senbatsu, Under Girls. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the current new versions of the "Concept" and "Membership" sections very fast, they seem okay. The sentence you added is correct, but you should find a source for it. I know it was me who explained that about trainees and I do believe that it is correct and I think your wording is correct, but still... I can be wrong. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The verbiage "learn the group's songs and are appointed as stand-ins for the main members, so that a replacement is always available" isn't my writing. I preferred the term understudies, but regardless, I have changed the sentence so it reflects the "20 alternate candidates" in the source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably added it myself, then. Actually, Japan Times do say "get to perform", so it wasn't completely unsourced. Okay, I will have to remember to find a source for that sentence, cause, as I said, it was correct. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I will change it back, then. Without the tag. "Alternate candidates" does mean that they learn the songs and act as stand-ins. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I forgot an edit summary, but I changed the sentence back and changed "stand-ins" to "understudies" as you siggested. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Membership section for the two selection processes is now condensed. No more redundancies or flourishing statements, and sources provided for what is there. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the "Concept" and "Membership" sections, they seem much better now. They explain everything clearer and in shorter, simpler sentences. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable graduations and resignations for the History section

Can someone sweep the History section and filter out any graduations or resignations that are not notable, mainly the redlink or nonlink ones that aren't firsts of its kind? The graduations can be kept in the timeline, and of course, with former members list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just had another idea: group graduations and transfers in a single paragraph per year. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the general idea wasn't good. Moving the graduations around may disrupt the order in which things happened. You would help more by finding sources for the sentences Lionratz tagged with {{citation needed}} a year ago. Yes, most graduations aren't notable. And yes, I actually created the timeline to move all unimportant stuff to there. If you just move most of them to the AKB48 timeline (with references), it would be better. By the way, I can't own the history section because I didn't write it. I worked seriously on other sections, but the history was too long to do anything fast. Basically, it is bad, it highlights random events and doesn't tell the story of the group. There are lots of gaps prior to 2010. I've been thinking sbout rewriting it completely, but I couldn't make myself do it... I would require a lot of effort. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The events in the History section do not necessarily have to be in strict chronological order (which the timeline is for) as the graduations would interrupt the story. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the graduations would make the story continuous. (What I've just said doesn't have to be true for all cases, but my argument is as good as yours.) There are very notable graduations that affected the story of AKB48. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, sometimes a graduation announcement is more important than the actual graduation. And while most graduations aren't notable, a member leaving without a graduation is mostly notable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No! No! No! You said "graduations", I said "graduations". You removed members leaving without any reason and members added to the group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume that the announcements listed in the article are notable. Of course it helps if they have a reference that states so. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I think you should not remove anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. You moved what you moved to the timeline rather cleanly. We can always add it back. We can always rewrite the story of the formation of Team 4 in a couple of sentences, mentioning Anna and Maria and Mina there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think many resignations will be removed as they seem to be a big deal with the group. Anna, Maria, Mina can be discussed in formation of the team 4 paragraph. It won't make sense to mention the names of the 10 or so members that transferred over. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, resignations are a big deal cause every one of them implies a scandal. If there's no scandal, even if someone just has some important stuff to take care of immediately, a small graduation ceremony can always be arranged at the next theater performance of the team the girl belongs to. Or in a three months, or whenever. If someone just left, just like that, without saying good-bye, there was a problem of some sort. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

History section

The History section needs some writeup regarding the formation of the sister groups since AKB48 was the basis. There is no mention of SKE48, SDN48 and NMB48 until the tsunami event on 2011. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of when they resumed operations at the theater following the tsunami in 2011. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The radio and TV shows such as AKBingo are barely mentioned, if not at all, in the History section. It supposedly started in early in the group. It should discuss the format a little bit and intentions. Same with the other TV shows on major Japanese TV networks from the group. Minor appearances such as internal video series, member guest spots and shorts can be kept in the filmography. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the shows are that important, but I support adding the dates when SKE48, etc. were created to the history section. As I said, you should look for more sources and more events to mention. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Should AKB48 article include move of own member into porn industry?

Due to extreme interest in this topic, I invite public and non-anonymous comment on whether we should bring up the move of one of those squeaky clean little junior idols into fully-nude, sexual intercourse adult videos, meaning actual coitus between two adults. If Britney Spears (the closest America has to AKB48) made a porn video, that would be extremely notable. I don't think we have to play "protect the brand name" under some rubric of "cultural understanding." -WikiSkeptic (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It should not, your edit was undone. This article is about the group, and what happened to her after she left is not related to AKB48 whatsoever. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If a member of TATU after leaving the group made a publicly distributed sex video, that would extremely notable. If Britney Spears, after her music career, made an adult access pay-for-play sex video that would be notable. I understand we want to protect the squeaky clean image of the AKB48 dream girls, but this was huge news in Japan. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be notable if AKB48 took away her graduation status and banned her from alumni activities, or if the company went notably out of its way to protect its brand because of it. If it's just "where are they now", then that could possibly go in the former members article if she does not have an article of its own. This would be the equivalent of putting Britney Spears news (she has plenty of those kinds of news) on the Mickey Mouse Club article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This person already has their own article and it covers this topic. If anyone is interested in this topic and came here to find information on this person it is easily accessed. If you have reliable sources about how it was "huge news" in Japan please add this information to the persons Wikipedia article as the large impact of this news in Japan is not represented in the article and if it was indeed humongous news in Japan then it should definitely be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.5.172 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Against it. The edit was undone for good reason (as it was first put into the controversy section. However, this is hardly a controversy that can be directly related to the group). There was a 2 years gap between the "graduation" and Nakanishi´s first adult entertainment work. So, it should belong to the individual article (and its already included anyway). Then, i honestly doubt that someone using terms like "squeaky little junior idols" has any other intention than trolling some otakus :/ Rka001 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent Team shuffles

I am NOW updating the member list according to recent shuffles. Please do not interfere. Thanks Rka001 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. The alignment of the three main tables looks bad now, maybe you want to renew it. However Kasai Tomomi will be removed from Team next week, so this might change the table positions. Also, you can decide what to do with the Kaigai Iseki table, because from now on, only Haruka Nakagawa has just the position in JKT. So, its quite redundant now. She still is an AKB member though! Rka001 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I updated the member count to what was reflected on the official site, which was 23 members on each team, with a bunch of concurrents, and 3 of the 4 overseas members appearing twice on the table (with respective team and overseas). -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Tables look okay now. I don't think they'll be disrupted until the fifth election. And the recent edit by the guest IP has the order consistent with the official website roster. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomomi Kasai is going to grad this week though. But thanks to the IP for sorting the lists properly! Rka001 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Should mention be made of the truly staggering amounts of money some fans are spending?

According to news reports, individual fans are buying upwards of $65,000 worth of copies of a single single, just to be able to vote thousands of times for their favorite or get up to 2 hours of "handshakes" from often underage girls. The huge numbers of votes being cast are not representative of massive fan numbers, but rather relatively few fans buying staggering numbers of disks. 1.4 million copies sounds like a lot, but if some fans are buying hundreds or thousands of them, it skews the numbers horrifically and represents a pretty significant controversy.99.111.148.11 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are just imagining things. 1. You can't stand there shaking hands with your favorite girl for 2 hours while other people are waiting in line. 2. $65,000 would buy you almost 5,000 copies. It is technically possible for a single person to vote so many times during the election time, but voting 5,000 times on the website would probably take the whole two weeks. But surely, something about fans buying multiple copies should be added to the article. It should be carefuly sourced from reliable sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does explain that you can get a ballot by buying the election single, so it naturally implies that people can buy more than one. You can cite articles that concern the business side of marketing AKB48 which mention multiple copies bought for multiple votes or collector items (multiple album covers). In terms of skewing the numbers, this is as controversial as any of those popularity contests where people pay to register a vote, so post if it is particularly newsworthy (site goes down, company is accused of posting a false winner ahead of the end of the voting period, company withholds its own chunk of votes like stock shares to influence election, re-count needed ). If someone actually did buy 5000 copies, please supply a reliable source for it, assuming the person is not exaggerating the numbers. Not sure which section this should be in though. The article already has a note about 43 types of posters and results of that promotion being shut down. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Japan Times article where fans buy 50-100 copies and the business folks do not mind: [14]. A fan blog (not reliable source, but does explain the situation) talks about copies shipped, the one guy who tweeted about buying a big stack of albums, multiple versions, and votes being sold on ebay. [15] -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the alleged super-voters with thousands of singles are merely reselling votes on yahoo auction, while keeping handshake tickets and theater photo pictures. There is a lot of bragging going on twitter, so as long there is no rock-solid evidence of people casting more than 1000 votes, we keep it as it is. That said, cases of people voting a few dozen times, or even in the lower triple digits are not that rare, and this is totally accepted by the fandom. In fact, most of the votes going to members, that are not exposed to the public 24/7, are coming by dedicated fans casting more than a few votes. The article as is is already implying it, and if not, such a sentence "There is no restriction of votes per person." can be easily included. Please be aware, that nearly every japanese "hardcore fan" uses at least the very cheap forms of electronic voting, too, so there are easily 5 votes per fan without any single being sold. Rka001 (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Aimi Eguchi

I think she has finally been removed from /members, so i transferred "her" to the "former members"-article. I also included graduations of Komori M. and Matsubara N. Next week, Tomomi Nakatsuka is going to grad as well.Rka001 (talk) 13:06, 4 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)

• Why invent something new? We can just create pages for all the elections. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Better yet, not do anything at all. These are not major events, they are of interest to no one but the fans. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you have any proof for your point? These are major events, they are of interest to a very big part of Japanese people. They are discussed in multiple reliable sources. Visit the Chinese Wikipedia, the latest articles about AKB48 elections were promoted to good article status there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Proof about GA status in the Chinese Wikipedia: AKB48第22張單曲選拔總選舉, AKB48第27張單曲選拔總選舉. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Please mind WP:OTHERLANGS as proof, and use their reliable sources they refer to instead. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:51, 14 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)
  • Your bias is shown in your misreading. A "regular" rock and roll band does not have a million members. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Haha! Where is your reliable source that AKB48 have a Million members? Nilbuk (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I give you this though, Drmies, in contrast to your Kpop-hating friend Dr.K. you at least make efforts to explain your edits and deletions, and not just use your admin status to revert without explanation or comment each and every change to Kpop and Jpop related articles. Nilbuk (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — Nilbuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Who cares, really... :P Here: 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. I propose not to start a discussion about it. It won't break the whole Wikipedia, and even if it does... (Give me an hour to write the track list.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:28, 7 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)

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)