Talk:AKB48/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

History section

@Moscow Connection: Whether you like it or not, in articles on bands and frankly anything important describing the History comes before any other section. If it's not coherent enough, fix it. There is no reason to explain the band's "concept" or its "membership" before saying anything about the band itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide me with the guideline stating the sequence of sections in music related articles? You should do something like this in the first place to avoid undo-orgies. Also, next time, before you do edits like this, please watch the related content and how the article is affected by your edit. For example, if you would move some of the concept content to the lead, id be fine. You are severy disrupting the flow of the article. So, let us please fix that before we decide where to move the concept section. Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Undo-orgies" are edit wars. History comes first on every single page on every other topic. There is no reason to lead here with "concept". Why do ou describe the concept of the band before you describe what happened to the band? That's nonsense. And this is effectively set forth at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout where there's an example article provided. And even if there was not an actual written rule that says "do this" it's standard practice across every article on musicians, other living persons, geographic entities, companies, etc.. There's nothing that makes AKB48 so different from all these other topics that determines that history should not be the first section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved two sentences to the lead to introduce basic concepts. Now the concept section can be moved below the history section to streamline the article in accordance to other music-related articles. It would have been nice if the original editor of this change would have thought about himself. As a sidenote, you are again acting overly aggressive. Also, AKB48 is not a conventional band. Its an entertainment business, which you may have or have not understood by now. Like, it totally makes sense to describe the concept before the history, because the concept was created before the band was. This is the third time i have taken care of the rape you are doing to this article (First, killing the tables, second, just adding this "Wotas buy more than one single" with the worst referencing in history, third, moving around sections without caring about the content.) I think ill ask somebody to take care of us in order to harmonize our efforts in order to improve that article. Rka001 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I stopped reading at the word "rape". Are you for real?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are doing nothing good to the article. What you do is called aimless activism. All you do is either removing useful content, or adding useless content with a bazillion redundant references. That is all you do. Plus, you are on a crusade beyond any reasoning. Like you are flat-out misrepresenting the content of your own sources. That said, i wont seek outside assistance: I just will stop working with you. Because i wont spend my time being troubled, whereas i am supposed to have fun. I have hundreds of edits in my domestic wiki article about homeopathy, thereby dealing with the most blatant quackery supporters of all time, and i have really never experienced anybody so unwilling to discuss things. Congratulations Rka001 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You called edits I've done in good faith to this article "rape". I removed the voting results and ugly obtrusive tables from this article because its not relevant for any band. I added content regarding multiple CD purchases to this page which is indeed supported by the sources, as are the content on the recent credit card fraud discovery. I moved two sections on this page to a lower position. How is any of what I did even possibly comparable to rape? You need to step away from this site if you're seriously comparing anything I've done to rape.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word "rape". I couldn't find a better one. Feel free to go on and on how i could relate such a terrible deed to your edit work. I am sorry! Look, nothing you have done was in "good faith":

• You removed tables by replacing them with the most boring lists noone was ever going to read. Tables included useful information about individual notability of members. 32% user rating etc. Even Japan Times stated how important Sousenkyo is for entire Japan. Remember that source you needed for your next "good faith" edit, and which you defended so bravely against me assessing it biased. This had to be reverted and it was done.
• As a sidenote, you were not willing to discuss the table ordering by making up some rule nobody even heard or cared about. You won that one because nobody actually cared.
• Then you proceeded by adding a single line of the multiple singles issue. The context was not explained, but 7 references added, of which one was seriously the worst reference ive seen in my life. None of your sources reliably justified the inclusion of the number "1000", which i only found out because i actually read all that stuff. Your only backup is a gaming blog site claiming that even they are unsure themselves if their own claim is true. But, i guess 1000 is more exciting than 100, so of course we are misrepresentating the data at hand. You flatout refused to even consider "essay:citation overkill", even when i was trying to combine your references in order to beautify your citation orgy. Not removing, combining, that is. But your reaction was calling me "beyond reasoning" and accusing me of hiding facts or whatever paranoid insult that was. It was me converting your mess of an edit into something valuable by adding required contextual data to that sentence. Somewhere at that point you called me "hypocritical".
• The next thing you came up with was the addition of that cd stealing incident. It doesnt even add anything useful, other than somebody was stealing cds, let alone in the context of "concept", but yet you spent 2 sentences for that exciting topic in an already inflated article, and added no less than 7 redundant sources, because it is your belief that "more resources are better than few" which is nonsense when all the references are stating the same, and you already have high quality references. Somehow, you are under the impression that 2 good and 5 bad references make 7 mediocre ones. And yeah, you think this totally qualifies for DYK. As if that would be the premium issue of this article.
• Finally, you disrupted the readability of this article by moving an unconventional block to somewhere else. You didnt even think about the consequences, because you obviously think "Be bold" means "Be thoughtless." Again, i had to quick-edit the lead to retain the flow of the article to some extent.
• You stubbornly insist to treat this article as any musical act, which AKB48 definately not is, to which anyone thinking 5 seconds about that matter would agree to. Your point, however, is to repeat @nauseam how we shouldnt special treat that article. In fact, this article is incredibly hard to write. Its an textbook example of a lemma that needs special treatment.
• I forgot that you had this brilliant idea to separate the band's history according to their album history. Noone else does that, as AKB48 has never released a conventional album. You know, unlike real bands they are not spending time on song writing or are going to rent some studio in Finland to boost their creativity process. Also, with an portfolio of 800+ songs, the mere 20 original songs they have released on albums have _nothing_ to do with anything band related. You could arguably use the stages as history intersections (remember "theater based"?) - or - crazy as that sounds - leave everything like it was, as it made sense mostly - but now we have that album separated history. Nice!
• As you now have confirmed, the main purpose of your editing work is your idea fixa is that this article is not negative enough. You stated that on my talk page, and you revealed that mindset by reverting somebody's idea of changing "buy" to "may buy" with the statement "do not sugarcoat" , because your general concept of buying multiple copies of something is very evil.
• You are repeatedly using inapprobiate language, and your way of approaching people is mostly inadequate. Not only here, everywhere. Yeah, i feel offended by it.

To sum up, if it weren't for me you would have transformed this article in some tabloid style mess with non-contextual one-liners, useless information and unreliable sources*. I am not saying your contributions didnt result in anything valuable. We have now the sales issue covered, and removed the birth-prefectures from the tables. But this has nothing to do with you, but with others cleaning up the mess your bulldozing style of edition is leaving behind. I guess you consider yourself a good wikipedian. You are not. I guess you are an educated and smart person, but you refuse to think out of the box when necessary and your discussion style reminds me of my 3-months old daughter. And this is really the last thing id say on that issue. I am ceasing to work on this article, until we can return to the good old consensus style of work. Rka001 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• edit: If i think about it, you actually didnt change anything at all :D— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rka001 (talk • contribs)

Read WP:AGF. All I'm doing is bringing this article towards the project wide standards of quality rather than making it a giant AKB48 fan page which it frankly looks like. I will no longer communicate with you regarding this page as you are showing a complete inability to look at this page neutrally based on this massive essay that I would in no right mind read all the way through that just attacks everything I've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's no rule like that. Usually bands don't have some special concept, this one has. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Every single article on a band has history first. AKB48 should be no exception. You should not have to describe the band's concept before describing the band's development. Stop moving things about. There is no need for a consensus to put in proper formatting on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

^Ryulong, could you please stop interfering? Your "improvements" to the table removed some members, added an absolutely incorrect description, etc. I have all the right to revert to the version before you came and practically destroyed the list. Please, just stop and do other things. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove anyone. If you want to fix the section, please do so in User:Moscow Connection/sandbox instead of breaking the live article with your edits. Also, you should not have removed the Hepburn romanizations and your "floating columns" formatting does not work. That is why I used the {{col-begin}} family of local templates.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Amina Sato is missing, for one. And you changed the member order which makes it hard to spot. Hepburn romanization is useless, it only makes the tables hard to read. It works on my computer. (But I can change back to columns if you like.) My version is much less broken than yours. The discription saying "Dark gray cells indicate that the member was not in the group at the time of the election. Light gray cells marked "N/A" indicate the member was part of the group but was not ranked in the election." is just incorrect, were you the one who wrote it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I have a suspicion that you reverted simply because you like your table better and that you will continue reverting. But I have every right to revert it back to the version before your non-consensual changes. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your version of the table deletes too much and does not look correct on my computer. The columns are broken. Hepburn is not useless. If anything, it makes sure that the names are correct because there were so many errors before (notably using Hepburn for members who have names that don't match Hepburn). Again, no reason to use Gojuon. This is the English Wikipedia. Not the Japanese Wikipedia. And the N/A boxes replace the × boxes. I have no idea what the hell those indicated. No one wrote about it. It was just an X that went unexplained. If I'm wrong, fix it. But don't restore everything just because you think things are ugly. The only thing different about the section is the use of Hepburn, no birth places, use of ages, and English alphabetical order instead of Japanese gojuon order. Honestly, this wouldn't be a problem if they weren't set up like tables in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change back to the X's, I just corrected your version, and they were explained before you came. I am absolutely certain cause AngusWOOF added the explanation and asked me to look at it. As for everything else, you added Hepburn romanization and you changed the order, so it is up to you to get consensus for these changes. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop reordering the sections FFS. History should be first as dictated by the WP:MOS and common practice across Wikipedia.

And again, FFS, I switched to English alphabetical order from the Japanese gojuon order because this is the English Wikipedia and not the Japanese Wikipedia and WP:MOS-JA states that the Hepburn romanization should be used for Japanese names, particularly when you switch to the Western name order.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, please revert you latest revert (section order) or I will report you for violation of WP:3RR. (I think it will result in a 24-hour block.) I don't want to do it, but I will. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm following WP:MOS but if you insist that the page be malformed so be it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, could you stop doing incorrect edits? Like this one. They are listed on the official website as AKB48 members. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You removed them in one of your edits so I assumed that they were not to be listed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I looked at an old version of the list. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Membership and members sections

It seems strange to have these two sections not only separated but far form each other. They should somehow be merged, or at least moved next to each other.--Cattus ^talk 21:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Membership section is need to as to explain how the group is organized, with auditions, graduations, elections and other events. The members section is the listing of the members themselves and their roles in the "band". -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, but they should still be next to each other, it's ilogical to have a membership section and 6 sections later the list of members. And I just noticed, reception and awards should also either be merged or moved next to each other. Awards are a form of reception.--Cattus ^talk 22:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the structure should be something that resembles WP:WPMAG, where Personnel and Awards (and nominations) are a separate section from Reception. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. It does have influence and award separated and far from each other, just like in this article. It seems counter-intuitive to me. I've been looking around at other similar articles, and The Shirelles, a GA, has influences and accolades next to each other and Aerosmith, another GA, seems to have the two merged into a Awards and achievements section. Haven't seen any FAs yet.--Cattus ^talk 22:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the bulk of the membership section to the newly created List of AKB48 members article, so hopefully that will make more sense. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Concept section

I am afraid Ryulong is going to do something to the concept section. This is what he said he was going to do. Ryulong, please don't do it. The concept section is good as it is.

Someone need to correct the member section and change everything back as before Ryulong came in January. I think the main contributors to this page are being bullied. It must stop now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop exercising WP:OWNership of this page and accept changes. This isn't a fansite that you get to control. It is a publically edited encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you want to own the page, not me. There are at least two editors who are telling you to stop making the article worse, and you still insist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)`

I think you don't know enough about the group to improve this article. You don't have any idea how bad the history section is. On the other hand, the concept and membership sections are okay, they actually explain important stuff about the group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's two editors who are trying to own the page and denying any outside input. The issue still stands that the history section should be the first section on this page. This is how every other page is set up across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. No, it's one editor who is trying to get ownership of the article. 2. There's only one person who thinks there's a problem with the current section order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about this article or the band. This page is in such a shit state and it's super fans like yourself and Rka001 who are preventing well intentioned fixes to formatting because "it's ugly" or "AKB48 is special".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you assuming we are "super fans"? It is you who are biased against the group cause you are bashing it all the time. Rka001 looks objective, I am objective too.
And stuff like "Dark gray cells indicate that the member was not in the group at the time of the election. Light gray cells marked "N/A" indicate the member was part of the group but was not ranked in the election." shows that people who don't know much about the group should be very careful with their edits.
I am afraid you will just break the article into unconnected chunks that don't make sense while intimidating the contributors into not wanting to participate in Wikipedia anymore. And then you'll go away. Mission completed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Concept and Membership sections being in front, per WP:WPMAG this is the equivalent of Early Life/Origins section to explain how the band was formed. It describes its original purpose, why 48 was chosen, the structuring of multiple teams, selection of members (audition process "generations", understudies (kenkyusei), age ranges to graduation), and its behavior ground rules. Akimoto's background as a producer/songwriter should also be mentioned - it doesn't seem he can launch such a thing without having some sort of previous reputation or work. Details such as influences from other idol groups (Morning Musume) can be briefly mentioned and detailed in the Influences section. Other key concepts can be introduced in the History section and moved to a Promotion (Marketing) section. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've went ahead and made this change. The Membership section is now integrated into concept and marketing, as well as put in the Members article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Member list split

I've split off the members section into List of AKB48 members due to size constraints.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will add some kind of a roster anyway. (When I have time.) All articles about musical groups have member lists. Hockey, etc. teams have rosters. There's no reason not to have a roster here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You did a very bad job with the list. You just copy-pasted it while Rka001 said he was going to write a proper article about AKB48 members. Why didn't you wait? Wikipedia would have profited from a good article. Now Rka01 will probably be discouraged from doing anything. I can talk only for myself, but I've looked at the list and I think it looks disgusting (very untidy) and I don't want to touch it or improve it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's edit has been reverted and the editor who did it notified me that administrators had placed Ryulong on 1RR. (Which means he must not perform more than one revert on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period.) It looks like he should have been blocked many times already for what he did here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not been put under 1RR restrictions. That is a sockpuppet of a banned user who is stalking me across the project. He has been blocked globally on at least a dozen accounts. If you see edits from that range in the future, please disregard it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And even if I was under 1RR, I did not perform any reverts to split the article off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be regarded as continuation of this: [1]. --Moscow Connection (talk)

No it can't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the split and copied some verbiage over from the main list to help explain the list. Let's talk about how to format the thing over at that new article. You can add a "roster" on the main article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to participate in editing this article anymore because of Ryulong's bullying. But let's put the members in gojuon order. It is the only official order (see the section below) and the alphabetical order makes it almost impossible to update and check the list. I hope Ryulong won't insist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

Not sure how to fix this myself, but thought I'd point it out - citation 21 ("Rivalry among 61 girls? (AKB48 Concept Store Part 3)") points to a different article than expected and does not act as a source to the 2 statements that cite it. --Lrdwhyt (talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The article used to have the "Rivalry" video attached with it, but the video has since been deleted and uploaded in 2013 by RazorTV. I've updated the citation. Thanks for pointing it out! -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

CNN Interview with Akimoto

• http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/13/ta.01.html

Lots of good insights about the lyrics, presentation, also how he auditions girls (no age restriction), why he has sister groups, why he has only 16-20 members on the cover, comparing it to American Idol, and some bits about Onyanko Club, -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Gojuon order

I am very sorry (I didn't want to ever return to this page again), but I am going to undo Ryulong's edit [2]. Ryulong, please don't insist. The English version of the official site lists members in gojuon order: [3]. Therefore it is the only official order in existance. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a more convincing reason than that, I'm afraid. There is absolutely no reason to use gojuon order in an English article, and apologizing in advance doesn't make it any more acceptable. --DAJF (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it is the only official order. To be exact, we don't even know it's gojuon, we are simply copying the list from the official website. The group's management might have had some other reasoning for putting the members in this order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Try posting over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan to get views and hopefully some consensus from a wider audience of editors experienced in dealing with Japanese subjects. --DAJF (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe in a few days. (Cause I don't have much time and if I start it, I will probably have to argue with Ryulong for days and I won't be able to concentrate on anything else.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No rush, and you don't actually have to argue with anyone. Just state your case calmly, and take note of what other editors (not me, not Ryulong) have to say. --DAJF (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "official order". The gojūon system is just the way things are put into order in lists in Japanese just like the alphabetical systems of other languages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is such thing as an official order. Some groups list their members by age, some choose other ways. For some reason, the management of AKB48 chose to list members like this. Maybe it was chosen to favor some members, who knows.
Personally to Ryulong: By the way, where is Amina Sato?. She is not listed here, she is not in the List of AKB48 members you created. I restored her entry in January. I told you that you probably deleted her accidentally. You just reverted me and didn't do anything to correct the mistake. Okay, you changed the order back to the one you preferred, but why didn't you add her back? It looks like vandalism, sorry. Do you only care about proving your point and not about the accuracy of information Wikipedias provides? Do you even understand that you are just destroying Wikipedia? You did much more harm than good here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no official order for AKB48. The order you see on the websites is the gojuon, no other order in use. Anything else you're saying is just your own personal opinion. I see nothing "special" about the order, otherwise the captains would be higher up on the list. As it stands, Minegishi is towards the end of the Team 4 list because the M consonants are so late in the gojuon order.

And this is the current lineup as of the whatever you want to call it on Monday. She's no longer in the band. You need to stop obsessing over this garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[Wikistalking Ryulong :P] Just because the official site has the members in a particular order doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to adopt that order. Alphabetical is about as neutral of an ordering method as you can get in the English language without requiring further referencing. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we need a footnote on the main article to explain that their website lists the girls in goujon order? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it should just be taken for granted that because it's a Japanese website they list the members in a Japanese ordering system.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Thanks to Ryulong taking me to this talk page. Now I'd like to provide a link to support Moscow Connection. However, seems no one would like to care about it. [4] Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I care about it. And I also have a link that shows that the group uses the same order in English: [5]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I see in this discussion is - before I joining into it, non of any official support is given, making someone keeps making into English order. The issue should be re-discussed now. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for telling you about that, but your link could not provide any strong evidence to prove there is an official order there, as it does not stated why Rina Izuta should be listed as the first member "at that time", actually. From this issue, I learned that nothing could have a stronger persuasion than a detailed article. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It just showed that they didn't change the order when listing the members in English. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. There is no reason to use a Japanese ordering system simply because that's the order used in the Japanese language sources for the subject, and apparently in its English translation. You have to come up with a more convincing reason to use the Japanese ordering system when this source you point out just says "we list them alphabetically by last name". It just so happens that this order is the gojuon in Japanese and the English alphabet in English. The fact that the English language list on the Japanese website uses gojuon is not proof enough that in English the company promoting them says "this is the official order".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you google-translate it? It says in gojuon order (50音順), not alphabetically (アルファベット順に). --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not have to go with a literal translation of "苗字の50音順" to mean "use gojuon". It's just their form of an alphabetic order. There's no point in listing these girls in gojuon on an English language article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as an editor, I should use Wikipedia policy now. The current order is per WP:SOURCE. The official label record has provided an extremely clear reliability there. Also, by WP:NPOV's means, it is not the point of view by both of them, but officially stated. Also, personally to Ryulong, what you say Japanese Wikipedia is totally violated to WP:COPYWITHIN, Japanese Wikipedia is just a mirror site for providing your evidence. Additionally, please refrain from WP:3RR. Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to the principle of a listing article in Wikipedia, if the list is being separated to be an article, the official order must be adopted. For English order, I'm thinking how to do it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally to Ryulong, sorry for being rude, but when reviewing the whole discussion, most of the editors joined with a neutral point, while there is no any strong evidence provided in the discussion - including what source Moscow Connection provided, thus an English order decision has been made. After a new evidence provided, you ignored it - at least you didn't discuss about the source. That's only a style standing on your ground against the opinion of the masses only. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You made a bold edit to institute the gojuon order and you were reverted. That means instead of constantly edit warring to force the article to have the order you and Moscow Connection prefer, you wait for this discussion to come to a conclusion in your favor. You are just as guilty as edit warring as I am.

There is no point in using the gojuon order on Wikipedia simply because you have one Japanese source that says "from now on we will list the members in gojuon order of their family name". There is nothing inherently special about the gojuon order which is why AKB48's promotional agency decided to use it so as to not have to deal with the constant shifting of the popularity polls in their native country of Japan and when everyone in Japan understands the gojuon ordering system. This is an English language website and the equivalent of the gojuon order is the English alphabetical order.

And you do not get to revert and claim "3RR". That is edit warring and the fact you logged out to perform this edit is damaging to you rather than me. Stop restoring the gojuon order. Stop edit warring. Let other people weigh in on this matter to look at the new evidence you have provided. Until then, the status quo is what should remain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Magical" gojuon order?

I have a question to pose to the editors here that are proposing that there is something "official" or "sacred" about the Japanese gojuon order used for the list of names on the AKB48 website. When a list of names (or any items, in fact) in Japanese includes a specific note mentioning that the names are listed in gojuon order, what does that actually mean? I'll give you a hint: it means exactly the same as when, in English, a list of names includes a note saying that they are listed in alphabetical order. In other words, it is saying that there is no special order, and that the names are not being presented in any implied order of superiority. As gojuon order applies specifically to Japanese text, there is absolutely no logical reason to use it in English contexts such as in an article on English Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is totally ridicious, the question we are arguing is - why an "announcement" was strongly emphasized that Izuta Rina should be listed as the first "at that time i.e. late 2012" when official English website source using the gojuon order? The answer is very clear. If there is no any official source with a reason provided, I'd not argue on it as it is nonsense. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

They had to make such an announcement in order to address the fans that would interpret any other order as having some sort of internal ranking significance, like how the fans interpreted early (pre-election/RPS tournament) album releases to have favorable positions and centers based on whether they showed up on the covers or would synthesize would-be centers based on the team that performed the song for their theater shows and public promotions. This is akin to any type of public listing of nominees and participants. As for their official English website, those are mainly snapshot translations of the Japanese website. When they bothered to write up the English sections, they are from 2008, but they have also opted to just Google Translate to do the work for them on the current pages. I think the gojuon order or whatever the printed order on the liner notes and CD inserts can be preserved in listings in albums and singles, although the unsourced bolding of "media senbatsu" for non-election/tournament singles has got to go. You can debate whether it needs to be presented on the main or the members list, but the good thing about the Wikipedia article now is that the tables can handle the sortable keys for alpha order, age, and election rankings. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually the main point. When there is a sortable key in the table, why an official source could be forbidden? IMO, just do two columns for one in English and another for official gojuon, perfect! But the idea seems has been regretfully banned. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We could split the name columns further so that there the Japanese name (kanji and romaji) has its own column and then add sort keys for gojuon? :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually. The reason is a difficulty would be found where it is unsortable without making a priority tag there. I'm still planning on the work there. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The gojuon order is used on the official website to facilitate a Japanese-language reader. However, this is the English-language Wikipedia and we should be facilitating the expectations of an English-language reader. The fact that they placed a notice that the ordering on the official site is gojuon shows that there is no "official" order. And as far as ordering the names go, we should follow the Principle of Least Astonishment. Between gojuon ordering and alphabetical ordering, an English-language reader is going to be less surprised by alphabetical ordering. In fact, gojuon ordering would be a foreign concept to most English-readers and and would confuse them—even if noted. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree-without-hesitation the opinion of no "official" order, which is strongly supported by the Team Surprise speech, that's why I suggest for a split. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 17:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A Japanese source uses gojuon ordering as a matter of convenience. There is nothing special about it beyond it being an ordering method that is widely understood by Japanese readers. Saying that the ordering is "official" is reading more far more significance into it than is actually there. However, this is the English-language Wikipedia. We are suppose to write articles so that an English reader can understand them. And an English reader is not going to understand gojuon ordering. For example, there is nothing official about the alphabetical ordering of states of the United States. It is simply a matter of convenience that allow people to easily find a particular state in a list. If there is an "official" order, it would be in order in which the states were admitted into the union. Yet, that order is not used at List of states and territories of the United States. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This hits the nail on the head. This is completely unlike say a list of the Prefectures of Japan where its codified somewhat to match a traditional order from north to south. This is a list of singers by their last names in Japanese and that obviously becomes a list by last name in English.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, spliting Japanese and English name session, that's it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Do not do this at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by spiting Japanese and English name session? You mean having separate columns for the name in English and in Kanji instead of using {{Nihongo}}? This has nothing to do with whether the list should be sort in alphabetical or gojuon order. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, like this. The current one could not switch into the official order. To me, it is totally an English hijacking on an official decision. Splitting maybe a better method to solve the argument, but the problem is, which should be adopted. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

N.B.: List of qualified into the FIFA World Cup could be referenced. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an English language website. We do not use a Japanese ordering system just because you are reading something that says it is "official". We are not using gojuon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be said? There is not "official" order, so there is nothing to "hijack". A Japanese-language website uses gojuon ordering as a matter of continence because it is widely understood by its Japanese readers. Nothing more should be read into it than that. Gojuon ordering is the Japanese equivalent of alphabetical ordering. Remember that the English Wikipedia's target audience is English readers who are very unlikely to know about gojuon ordering and would be confused by it. However, no such confusion exists with alphabetical ordering for an English reader. For these reasons, the English-language Wikipedia should use an alphabetical ordering as it follows the Principle of Least Astonishment. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeing all this, i am just so glad that i decided to stop contributing to this article. This just in. Thank you for reading. Rka001 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided quit too. Some editors totally ignored what official say and disregarded them. I felt very upset about that. What thing astonished? I don't know. Then, continue, or the article would fail, I promise. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What I could see, discussion is useless. Disregarding the official decision is the major principle. Got it. That's my only point of view in this article. That's all. Sorry, I quit. That's enough. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop claiming that it's the official order. It's just an alphabetic order that the company says it is using to avoid favoritism. You can all work on the god damn article otherwise. It's so insanely childish to refuse to do anything because your waifus aren't listed in the right way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Official is official, it is your decision if you strongly decided to disregard it, and no turn could be find at this moment. I have no plan to argue with you at this issue anymore, as I wrote plenty of works to solve the argument but none of them were accepted, i.e. only what you decided is the final answer. Finally I got your point. As a result, I decided to quit and informed the administrators about my decision on this article. Just it. Just do anything what you like. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You said the company claimed to avoid favoritism. Then explain why gojuon order is used on the English website, and why the article should be disregarded. You did not explain anyway and keeps reverting into what you like. This is what I could see in these weeks. Don't explain to me now. I don't want to listen anymore as I decided to quit. Say the words objectively, you made two editors decided stop contributing on this, why the situation being bad like that? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And we're avoiding favoritism by using the English alphabetical order. It doesn't matter that a Japanese website uses a Japanese ordering system, even if it's part of their half-assed English translation. It makes absolutely no sense to use the Japanese ordering system on the English language Wikipedia just because you have Japanese sources that say "we list them according to the gojuon". For fucks sake, it's just a list of their names. Why are you and Moscow Connection obsessing over this demanding that we kowtow to your personal interpretation of a source?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Closure

Let's close the discussion as Keep the gojuon order or No consensus and change the list back to how it was before January (rearrange the list back to gojuon order, add the tables back, etc.) cause Ryulong failed to gain consensus for the change. And in the future, let's just do whatever we want to and not listen to people who disrupt the work on this article. Cause just like Rka001, I stopped contributing to this article because of one editor. And I haven't read the talk page for a month just because it's too annoying to read it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you crazy? The consensus is "use English alphabetical order". We don't need the tables here because it just clutters the page with content that is not necessary to the lay reader. No one gives a fuck about the voting other than the most obsessed of their fans, which is not the audience Wikipedia has. All that information belongs on a separate list of members (as it has been placed) or on some fansite that is not Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus like that. You changed the order several months ago and since then you have been disrupting all work on this article.
You reverted Rka001, you reverted me, you reverted KyleRGiggs on the List of AKB48 members. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus here is DAJF, Angus Woof, the IP address, and myself arguing in favor of the English alphabetical order, and you three arguing in favor of gojuon. You do not have consensus to go back to gojuon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus to go back to gojuon because it's you who needs a consensus to change from gojuon to alphabetical. You changed it in January, you tried to trick us by endlessly arguing and splitting the list. (And IPs are not editors.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you do because there are enough people here who think that the English language order works perfectly fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the consensus here is Rka001, an IP address, KyleRGiggs, and myself. If it's not a consensus, then there's no consensus and everything must be reverted to before January. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP address is in favor of the English alphabetical order. Not the Gojuon. Stop misinterpreting things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the order in the List of AKB48 members back to gojuon: [6]. I am begging Ryulong to stop reverting without a consensus. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly English alphabetical order. You are wrong in assuming that "Gojuon" has the consensus here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop saying what is not true. I will go to admins. This must stop now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not lying. The consensus here is for English, not Japanese. And go to admins and watch yourself get chewed out for bringing something so insanely trivial to them as has been the case with every single person who feels that they must report me to ANI because I'm disagreeing with them on an animu and mango page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do I keep getting myself in these fucking WP:LAME worthy arguments? It's just a list of their names. It should not be so god damn complicated to present that information on Wikipedia. No one but people like you, Rka001, and KyleRGiggs even care about having this content presented in this esoteric order. Wikipedia is not written for the fans who want it in this order. It is written for a general audience, and the general audience will not understand why the order goes AIUEOKGKGKGKGSZJSTDCNHBFPBPFBPHMYWR instead of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is MOS:JA

Alphabetical order Lists of romanized words in the English Wikipedia should be ordered in alphabetical order, A–Z, instead of the common Japanese ordering system which is based on the kana characters. In the case of names, alphabetize by family name, not by given name. Words with macrons should be alphabetized as if the macron was one of the normal five vowels. In cases where two words are exactly the same except for a macron vowel in one word, the non-macron version should be listed first. This rule also applies to lists of prefectures or other place names, and is in contrast to the Japanese standard of ordering from north to south. Exceptions to this rule can be made when the geographic location or arrangement is important to the overall context of the article, such as in the article Prefectures of Japan. Articles which fall under this exception should always explain the non-alphabetic sort order used within the article.

Disagree about restoring the tables on the main article. As their singles and albums credits list, the main article should have a simple list with Team A, Team K, etc. I do not see a consensus for alpha or gojuon order for initial appearance, but since the tables are sortable, I strongly suggest keeping the English last name sortable key in the table for the members article, and if you really want a sortable by gojuon order, that can be implemented, although there is no consensus for that solution either. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no any consensus between English nor gojuon order at all. Don't self-proclaimed a consensus of English order should be used, okay? Or someone seems not knowing that what is the meaning of consensus. Okay. Seems the situation could not be solved. I'm now requesting an administrator for mediation. It's so annoying. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

AngusWOOF has found that the Japanese manual of style insists on an English language order unless the traditional order has some contextual significance. There is none here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are constantly saying "no", "there is none", etc. It is a very unconstructive way of arguing.
There is significance here. They list the members in the same order in English too.
If KyleRGiggs asks admins to look at this, I would want them to look at your contributions to this article cause I can only remember you adding a couple of sentences that bash the group. Everything else you did is rearranging and attempting to delete the list of members. You were asked to stop several months ago. You didn't and you succeded at driving at least two contributors away (Rka001 and me). Now you are trying to drive away KyleRGiggs. Yes, sure, you are very good at reverting and then tricking people into thinking they can't revert you back and endlessly arguing. But admins must look at your edits and think what may be your purpose here. I believe what you did here damaged this article a lot and harmed Wikipedia. I actually think you should be banned from editing this article. It has been 4 months since you came and disrupted everything. It must stop now.
Could you please go away? Could you? Why are you doing this? Everything should just be reverted to December/January and then people who care shall decide what we should ot should not change. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See. The thing is, this totally doesn't matter. Any of you guys could have backed down on that issue, easily. Nobody could care less about the ordering of the members, as long as noone has a clear idea or vision how this article should look like in the final version. This article is now a complete mess with several editors warring about every fart. The article looks plain ugly with its million line breaks, it totally fails to explain the big differences between an multi-angle entertainment enterprise designed for otaku culture and a music band (this historical ordering by albums is worth many :facepalm:s), it has associated information scattered among paragraphs, it fails to remove information that might have been once useful, but is now stuff noone cares about anymore, it lacks a a clear policy about member notability and news incorporation, and so on. F.e., one your sentences starts with "AKB48 made the news...." and proceeds with some basement dwellers failing to sell stolen CDs. Well, AKB48 makes the news every freaking day. Good luck to include all that stuff, if your notability standards are that low.

And to make matters worse, the creative atmosphere here suffers a lot by the presence of tough internet guys who "accuses" everyone of being a fanboy in love with their "waifus" when opinions aren't shared and who have become hysterical on more than one occasion. And clueless others who think sousenkyo is only interesting to fans, when in fact it is basically the only event that is of big nationwide importance. I cant even proceed about how stupid that opinion is. Whatever.

So, instead of trying to turn this mess of an article into something proper, you guys prefer to war about member ordering. As if. It is a mere list of names, which without further info is the most uninteresting list ever compiled. The member article is much better in giving useful information, anyway. So, scrap that list here, list the most notable members (maybe all with more than 20 senbatsu participations or what have you), explain why they are notable, and that's it. But you are basically wasting time and energy on matters that are at the very bottom of the priority list. You could also roll a dice, if that would settle things faster. Good luck with the article. Rka001 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I think if your suggestion about listing some members basing on some random criteria is implemented, it will only make the article worse... Someone will come with some strange criterion for which members to list... What will the purpose of this list be? For accidental visitors so they could learn some names of popular members to start with?
2. You see, the article is now, after the tables were removed and members rearranged in an unusual incomprehensible order (I can't find anyone), completely useless for me personally. I can't edit something that I don't read myself. And I am afraid to look at it cause I am afraid that someone has done somethng even more terrible to it.
3. You shouldn't leave. By leaving you are giving this article away to a person who doesn't care to improve it. Maybe we can still do something. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have forgot to add that this article still gives facts that are not backed up by its sources, but noone really cares. Just for the record.

I would contribute to a project where we check every sentence for it's usefulness and notability. A rewrite from scratch. This article in its current form is beyond rescue. And i don't really feel like dealing with all this nonsense. You see, in my home wikipedia i have three digits of edits for the homeopathy article and talk. I have defended it versus countless of quacks and pseudoscientists, but in the end it wasn't as desastrous as here. As long this article's content is based on who screams the loudest, i am certainly out. As for the membership - you can have it any way you want. It's a list of names without context. I actually would love to remove it, and - again - give just the really important members. How to do that, could be debated. Anyway, anyone one of you could have backed down without troubles in this issue. The mere fact, that this issue turned into a major argument is convincing enough to stay away from that article until everybody chills again. Sorry. Also, i am in the very midth of writing my phd thesis, which is actually the more important issue :) Rka001 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You all need to separate your emotions regarding the subject of this article with improving the article.

There is no significance into using the gojuon order for the members of AKB48 or any of their related bands on the English Wikipedia, because there is no cultural significance in using that order in regards to this particular band. It is not like the order of the prefectures which has a traditional significance. It is just a list of names in the Japanese alphabetical order. The claim that KyleRGiggs made regarding that one digital liner note entry that says "We chose Gojuon" is insignificant. The English alphabetical order is not an "unusual incomprehensible order" if English is your first language or if you passed kindergarten. The insistence that the esoteric (to an English audience) Japanese gojuon order makes this or any article easier to edit is incomprehensible when this is an English language website and not a Japanese language website. Again, WP:MOS-JA#Alphabetical order states use English, not Japanese ordering, unless there's some significance to the ordering in context. To me, it just seems that you can't update the lists members "graduate" or added or find your particular favorite member because you have their location in the gojuon ordering so ingrained in your memory that it overrides your ability to look at a list of names put in the ordering system of your native tongue.

There is no reason for me to leave this article or any other, particularly when it is just so you can have your precious fanpage back. Nor is there any reason to undo any level of the changes that myself or other editors have put into this page just because of your personal preferences to the content that have no basis in any fo the wider policies and guidelines of this website.

Rka001. Notability on Wikipedia only regards whether or not pages deserve to be kept. There is no such threshhold for content that can be added to existant pages. If it can be verified by reliably sources and neutrally presented, then it's perfectly fine. Your complaints about the content I added regarding the hundreds if not thousands of copies singular people purchase for the sousenkyo votes or the handshaking events, as well as the one instance where it was discovered a group stole credit cards to make similar purchases, are unfounded.

Also, organizing the history of the musical group by their album releases is universal practice across Wikipedia. AKB48 nor any other idol group isn't so special that it deserves its own special formatting that is not used on any other page.

This article gets a list of all of the members in their groups, but certainly not in that massive table that lists every single "buy all five versions of our CD in duplicate so you can grease this thinly veiled popularity contest/money grabbing scheme" vote result.

In conclusion, consensus and overarching guidelines state that the order of sections of this page, the format of this page, and the order of the 89(?) members in AKB48#Members and List of AKB48 members are not to be modified from their present state to be whichever format you so desperately cling to because you think it's pretty or it presents the information in a way that only the biggest otaku for this group would find useful.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Your sources do not back up the statement. 2. I tried to combine your bazillion of sources (including that one from the japanese Sun equivalent) into a list, to which you started to basically become hysterical.I remember you "forbade me to combine the references". Or sth similar crazy. Still, the best source for the "1000" is that nerd blog who state itself that it is unsure if their story is true. I pointed that out, you preferred to ignore it. What can i do? You are obviously not willing to work together. 3. Your other "major" contribution to this article, that wasn't reverted, was the totally unrelated story of nerds stealing cds from other nerds. This is totally shit noone cares about. It was on the news for 2 hours, and then everybody ignored it afterwards. Your motivation behind that inclusion was "showing the dirty side of the matter" or sth similar bizarre. That article consists of 50% stuff nobody wants to know, and you add some more of it. Because you can source it. I can tell you, if you really, really want, i can start editing the most recent news on AKB48 on a daily basis. Because they are on the news every day. As i said, if that is your treshold of useful information, then good night. 4. You fail to realize that AKB is not your musical act next door. 80% of its members cant sing or read keys. Still, you try to press it into some scheme that is not matching at all. Like that hilarious album history. Or the one time, when you edited away that concept chapter. lol. 5. You are constantly implying that anybody else here is some otaku being overprotective of their oshimen. or what have you. It's bizarre and it's annoying. Noone wants to do that here. AKB48 is a somehwat special topic, that needs major article structure adjustment. The fact that it is special does not mean that it is necessarily good. Or acknowledging that it is special doesn#t transform you into otaku. That is very important for you to understand. As long as you are editing with this mindset "i need to protect that article from crazy otaku", we have no basis - because they simply do not exist in this environment.

And now, please answer me: Do you really think that starting that war about the member ordering was worthwile other than for your own enjoyment? Was it entirely impossible for you to just let it in the website ordering? Do you think you have substantially improved the article by having an english ordering now? Rka001 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think having the gojuon order improves anything when only the most nerdiest of nerds would give a shit? And the theft story is credit card fraud and not "nerds stealing from nerds" but that's not what this discussion is about. It's about using an English language order on an English language website rather than a Japanese language order on an English language website. If you wish to discuss the merits of the multiple purchases or your claims that because AKB48 isn't really a musical group and therefore its article shouldn't look like the articles of all other musical groups, you are free to start up a separate discussion on those matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1. No, i do not have an opinion on that matter. You should not have one, too. Because the ordering is sth as you said "most nerdiest of nerds would give a shit?". Still, you started a major unnecessary edit war on that matter, because i do not know. Maybe you think edit warring is fun, or something. Or your internal priority order of things that matter is fundamentally different from mine. 2. "Credit card fraud." What was the volume of that fraud again? Are you deliberately misinterpreting things? I can only repeat myself - if your personal threshold of notable information is _really_ that low, you should start to include stuff like this on a hourly basis. Because if you do not, this only shows your personal bias. Again - including non-encyclopedic stuff like this, while simultaneously trying to remove useful and notable information - how would YOU call that? 4. You turn around the burden of proof. The article did use a different format before, and it was YOU trying to change that. Fortunately most of your edits have been reverted and/or challenged. 5. If you are denying the simple fact that there are tremendous differences between AKB48 and conventional music acts - and i dont even mean that in a positive way - then we really have no further base, and you should stay away from editing this article. 6. As a sidenote, i have learned that all of this is your method to troll people. I guess you are sitting in your home and having a good laugh at all this. Seriously, how can anyone ever take your attempts of editing this article seriously considering your history of temp bans and rule violations? I feel kinda sorry to be involved in all this. It's creepy. Rka001 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, three of your links provided for that extreme case of robbery that nearly crashed the entire japanese economy are now pointing at 404s. That is the usual problem citing news pages. Maybe the content has been transferred or even removed. The first three links are still working, maybe we can keep just them, or you might bring up new ones. Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing I put more than 3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Its common problem with sanspo and other news site: temporary urls for news articles. Are you going to find the missing content, or do you allow me to remove the dead links? Rka001 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to remove them, and the content is still supported by the other working refs. Just find a web archive of the content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not have time. Can you do that? Rka001 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's fine. You can just tag them with {{dead link}}.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to scrap the roster from the main article? That can be done, although I think it is still useful to know at a glance who is on what team. The article is still missing some major content, that is, the programs (with the jargonistic "Stage Units") each team is currently performing in the theater if they are distinct from each other. If they all perform the same program, then nevermind. The "popular" and favored members usually have linked articles, but can be garnered from the members page anyway with all those election rankings and center mentions in the History, or the Former Members infobox. I agree we should focus on improving the general article, and talk more about the brand marketing and expansion, the musical themes from each single, so it isn't those rigid timeline cycles of "single announced, single promoted, single released on X, it sold Y copies and was number 1 again. it extended this record and that streak, they performed at Z and broadcast on W, and other scheduled events. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: You said called sousenkyo "buy all five versions of our CD in duplicate so you can grease this thinly veiled popularity contest/money grabbing scheme". Exactly. You really, really need to realize ASAP that the whole purpose of AKB48 is to grab money. AND then you need to calm down about it. Very important. So, even if you correctly identified senkyo as a money grabbing machine, your opinion totally does not count here. Wikipedia does not care about how you feel about it. Wikipedia needs straight facts. For example, that the last sousenkyo was of nationwide importance, peaked at 36% tv rating, and was re-broadcast in its entire length on golden hour on fuji afterwards. It had live commentary, both in jp and en, by popular entertainers, and its youtube stream was iirc watched by 250k people. So, only for otaku rip off? so what? What do you even care? We need facts. I like facts like those i listed, you like facts about nerds stealing cds from other nerds, while you wanted to remove the sousenkyo information. Now, go figure, what your intention is. Don't act like we are stupid :P. In summary, the only editor that is clearly on a mission to make a point, is -sadly- you. Everyone else is pretty down to earth. Edit: I have just learned that i am just #6475 on your list of people you have e-warred with. I realized you have even entire threads and pages dedicated to you outside of wiki. This puts everything into a different light.

@Angus: Now, we are talking. I personally do not need exact info about all the stages (concert setlists are usually removed from wiki) - but its certainly something we currently do not explain - why and how stages are important and how they contribute to the sucess. I agree on every other thing. We should emphasize more on the really interesting things, the concept, why it is so successful and why it is different from Depeche Mode or Johnny Cash (i dont even dare to compare them^^). For the history section, we could remove most of the concerts. For example, last year boudokan... i know there was a minor shuffle announcement, and at that time, it was the most interesting thing etc, but in the end, its so outdated by now, we could entirely remove it. It had no impact whatsoever, aside from Kasai's graduation, which can be reported about elsewhere. And with that question in mind ("How important was event x? Is it important now?") we should go step by step through every sentence. What are the really important milestones in the history of AKB48? I can tell you, album releases are at the very bottom of the notability list^^. Individual record sales, unless really outstanding, could be totally transferred to the discography section. Eventually, we should have a short, precise chapter for every year with the really important events. With that aim in mind we can sift through the entire article. Do we really need to tell which colors each team has? Can't we merge the concept, promotion and media section, at least partially? Is the reader benefitting from a sheer list of 100 names, he can not relate ot anything, or can we maybe emphasize on the really important members, and transfer the rest to the member article? In the end, we can then argue about which sorting the member list should have. lol. And then, we could try to turn that current mess into sth "good" or even "excellent". That is our goal.Rka001 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack at the handshake event

If someone needs some help on fleshing out the background of the incident, here is a helpful list of articles compiled some days ago. Hope it'll help clarifying some things. I noticed English-language news sites aren't particularly reliable about that. http://uliuliulli.tumblr.com/post/87396095052/an-actual-analysis-of-this-akb-saw-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.101.132 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Baito AKB

New team scheme for AKB48 called Baito AKB where the girls join the group for a five-month contract.

• http://nihongogo.com/2014/10/53-girls-recruited-through-akb48s-baito-akb-part-time-job-campaign/

-AngusWOOF (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversy (in the sense of criticism)

The reader will surely notice that the article's wording is extraordinarily tame. True criticism has no business here? For instance, this (reminding me of homunculus) concept of "exchangeable", quasi-lookalike girls (with even the same hairdo) should not meet everyone's taste, no? Once one of the huge crowd of girls is sick or just exhausted (from their daily (!!!) appearances in visual media), there are always some "replacement girls" (like "bench-warmers" in association football!) ready to replace the girl(s) who can't appear ATM. This means, that there can't be a real fan base based on individuals (like e. g. with a former, though long-lasting UK group like Girls Aloud), but these girls are so hard to distinguish with their kawaii nondescript faces that anyone is anyone, and the fans will sooner or later see the "band" as a mere accumulation of near-identical smiling faces than "the band with X and Y as members". Feels like they're clones or something. Even if one of the girls quit the band for good, they will soon be forgotten. This is giving me the creeps (albeit mild ones for now) Future outlook: Imagine this group still exists in 2100. Who'd be surprised if the producer will be able to 3D-print some of them? With adjustable mouths, eyebrows, eye distance ... (Consider that with Hatsune Miku, they've just begun ;)) -andy 2.243.85.234 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRIT and if you have some substantial secondary reliable sources to expand upon the criticism of the group, you can add that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

TBH I was seriously thinking of reliable sources that put the criticism into words. But apparently there are not, except for the (pretty decent) Washington Post article. And a German on-line magazine like Spiegel Online which indeed does cover some of the criticism I was just outlining, has no business in English Wikipedia. Hence it would not make much sense to add it here. What'll be next? A Finn adding his local article from Helsingin Sanomat newspaper? ;)) Nah, let's stick to English sources. BTW, I also wanted to encourage other Wikipedians who may be reading my post to search for sources including constructive criticism about this topic. -andy 2.243.85.234 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the source is reliable, the language doesn't matter. TranquilHope (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

andy, the situation that you describe only exists in your head (likely as a continuation of the "All Asians Look The Same" cliché we all know and love) and wanting to present it as if it's fan behavior is just proof of your lack of actual research, likely you haven't interacted with fans once if you are saying it seriously. The reality is that the whole fanbase IS actually structured into micro-fanbases each dedicated to a single member, not least because following and supporting the group as a whole isn't viable anyway. I shouldn't even be here explaining this to you, it should be baseline knowledge to anyone willing to discuss this group, but the term oshi-men (used to describe the only member a fan swears to follow and support) is something that didn't even exist before AKB48's foundation, proving that "supporting an individual member within a larger idol group" is (paradoxically) a mindset born with AKB, and the word is such a common occurrance both in media and Internet discussions one has to be blind to ignore. Moreover, if there "couldn't be a real fan base based on individuals" things like the yearly Senbatsu election where you must cast your vote for one individual member alone couldn't have been conceivable, much less could've escalated to the frenzy I can see today.

In short, andy, don't make me laugh.

Some people tend to mistake real criticism based on the real aspects of things with the confused jaded ramblings of a clueless outsider who wishes to sound world-weary, but it's not the same thing. And mind you, this also applies to modern journalists, who've become nothing more than bloggers with a badge.

You're asking this entry to be more MORE CRITICAL and MORE SEVERE? What for? Just to please your animosity? If it were up to me, I'd completely erase the Controversy section of this entry, considering that most of the criticism put forward so far is nothing more than examples of yellow journalism tinged with sweeping generalizations that are easy to prove wrong anyway.

Let me put it this way: in order to fuel their anti-fur campaign, some years ago PETA kicked up a fierce protest against Super Mario because he wore a Raccoon Suit, accusing Nintendo of all sort of cruelties and ill intentions, but would this possibly warrant opening a Controversy section in the Super Mario page describing how "the videogame has often been criticized for promoting animal abuse and fur skinning" on the basis of that campaign and their media sympathizers? Hell, no. I even checked the entry right now and there isn't any Controversy section. So why even making a list here on the AKB48 entry enumerating all the times some journalist flipped out with fake outrage on his column?

I'm sure the actual reason people come to read this page is to find an exhaustive account of the group's activites, just as it happens with the Wikipedia entries of any other damn group. So get focused on fleshing out that part instead, before you can think of having a "critical opinion". And while at it, let's start using Japanese sources more frequently, since this is a Japanese group aimed at a Japanese audience anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.71.206 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Umeda incident

I removed this paragraph as it described Umeda instead of AKB48:

The culprit, an unemployed man named Satoru Umeda from Owada, Aomori prefecture, was apprehended on the spot by policemen and taken to the local police station for further questioning, where the man admitted responsability for his own actions. During the interrogation, Umeda stated that he held no personal interest in AKB48 nor was he a fan, a claim backed up both by his family's testimony (regarding his behavior at home, and the fact thay have never witnessed him bring any idol-related goods at home) and by the fact that no occurence of his name appear in the database history of applicants for theater shows and other subscription-based events. By his own admission, the choice of his targets was meant to be indiscriminate, adding that he didn't even know the names of his two victims but "as long as it was AKB" any target was "good". Explaining why he selected the venue of a handshake event for his assault, he stated that he "felt frustrated and wanted to kill someone, so he looked for a large gathering of people and heard of the event".. According to a testimony from his mother, before the incident took place, Umeda was last seen the day before at around 4:30 AM. Claiming he couldn't sleep, he departed from home with the excuse of going out for a walk, after which he made his whereabouts unknown ignoring any incoming calls to his cellphone that his mother sent. In order to assess the criminal liability for his actions, the Morioka court requested that Umeda be placed under psychiatric examination, at first for a period going from June 6 to July 29, which was later extended until September 2, furthermore the initial charges of attempted murder were found "inapplicable" and thus were changed to bodily injury and infringement of weapon regulations. On November 4, Umeda faced court hearing at the Morioka district court. After acknowledging his actions, he expanded on his initial motives with the assistance of his lawyer, asserting that the spur to attack came after learning from television that AKB members enjoyed high-paying salaries. Having lost his job as a security guard and being unemployed since December of the previous year, he claimed to feel disgruntled at this percieved inequity and believed that by resorting to violence he would've finally relieved himself of part of the frustration. Umeda was ruled guilty, the defense lawyers accepted the verdict unconditionally.

A footnote can be added later regarding to what happened to that guy, but having the section describe the goings on for the guy does not belong in the main article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)