Talk:Ayumi Hamasaki/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Too many images?

I don't know, but isn't even one image per section too much? Featured articles such as Mariah Carey's and Celine Dion's have no more than five images in the whole article. Thanatous (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current image usage. She goes through a lot of looks, it's kind of interesting to see the changes. TJRC (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I think now there are way too few images. I don't see a problem with the addition of the audio samples, but most of those edits also deleted images, and I think they went overboard. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworded

I shorten some paragraphs and took out some parts that were unnecessary, such as Guilty (or anything else) being release in CD and CD+DVD format (there's a reason why the album has a page of its own.) I also notice that while the other parts in her career section seem to get to the point, her 2007-2008 section seem to be very lengthy and wordy. 206.40.103.156 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Her 2007-2008 section is a bit wordy...hm...maybe I can fix it the next time I edit. Too peachy (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined "Music career" and "Personal life" sections

As featured articles such as those of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion do not have separate sections for their respective music careers and personal life (or life outside their music careers), I merged the "Music career" and "Personal life" sections into a "Life and music career" section. Thanatous (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable references?

Some of the citations used in the article appear to be self-published, and according to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning reliable sources, should probably not be used. However, Celine Dion's article, a featured article, utilizes a self-published source to reference her sales figures. Should the information that cites self-published websites as their sources be removed, or what?

The references:
http://www1.coralnet.or.jp/
http://www.musictvprogram.com/
http://ampedasia.com

Thanatous (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically they should be removed. But this article has a lot of reference issues. Way too many unnecessary and bad references. For example referencing yesasia.com to prove and album/single had a CD+DVD version. Unnecessary and it makes the article look like editors are more concerned with having an large amount of references listed than the actual validity of these references. Same goes with the Amazon Japan references and references to her official website for release dates. The release of singles really shouldn't be referenced unless there is a dispute as to when it was released. The TIME magazine references need to be correctly combined. I see 2-3 references of it that are referring to the same page. Hedatari (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But I don't think the citations concerning the format and date of her releases need to be removed (especially since this article contains a biography of a living person); the only information that need not be cited is general common knowledge, subject-specific common knowledge, and the plot of the subject. As for the TIME references, I can see multiple references, but each one is to a separate page of the article. Thanatous (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying referencing releases of singles/albums is silly. It's common knowledge. You can easily obtain that information anywhere compared to other subject matters covered. If the references are a must I would think it's because the single/album release is so rare that a reference is needed to prove the existence of the single/album... and there's also references to fansites like Eneabba.net and Tsunku.net,... to me it starts to look messy when things like a single/album need a reference. She may be a living artist, but not referencing the release date next to every single/abum isn't damaging to her as an artist. I would think just putting one reference next to her discography header would be sufficient. Anyways these are just suggestions and I am far from an expert on this. But it's nice to see someone working on her article. Keep up the work. Hedatari (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're right; other featured articles don't have citations for the release dates of the artists' releases. Tsunku.net, however, appears to be Tsunku's official site (the site is the only site that claims it, and this site seems to agree.)

Thanks again for your input. Thanatous (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-writing "Music career" section

...per the peer review here. (Modeling the article after Celine Dion's, per the third-to-last bullet in the review.) Thanatous (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Audio samples?

As other featured articles do, should we include audio samples of Hamasaki's songs in the article? Thanatous (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to, then only do the songs that she is most notable for. Though it isn't necessary, Hamasaki is very influential in Japan and hearing a bit of her a music will be good. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the songs copyrighted, even if it is 30 seconds preview. --staka (T ・C) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Use templates, please

{{cite web}} and {{cite news}} exist for a reason. Don't substitute them. Now it will take ages to make all the basic links into citations with the template again >:-( -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the templates really necessary? According to Wikipedia's style guide on the matter, the use of templates isn't strictly required. The disuse of templates allows for things like notes to be added to the citation. (For example, if the web page being cited is particularly long, a note added to a citation could point out the section appropriate to the citation) Also, other featured articles like S.H.E's do not use templates. Thanatous (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That they don't use it doesn't mean you shouldn't. I can point you thousands of featured articles where they do use citation templates.

In fact, the templates exist to standardize the citation format. If we change the Retrieved field to be inside the date, you would have to manually change them all. Having templates make the updates automatically. I suggest to go back to template use. I would really hate to revert all your changes to the last one with the citation templates. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the templates should be used. However, please do not revert otherwise worthy changes solely for the internally cosmetic value of using templates rather than fully expanded citations. Content first, cosmetic second. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I've re-installed the citation templates save for the Kaidan reference. (The website pointed to in the reference is a Flash site, and I thought it would be helpful having a note annexed to the citation explaining which part of the website was being referenced.)Thanatous (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing lengthy paragraphs

I reworded the 2007-2008 section, which I also change to 2007-present. I also deleted the fact about her and her boyfriend breaking up as though it is notable, it does not have any effect in her career (thank God!). I also deleted the CD+DVD info about her A Best 2 albums, as that part can simply be put on the two albums' own page. As for the part about Guilty debuting at #1 but getting the #2 spot overall due to Oricon's practise of blending two weeks as one, please make it as a footnote instead of actually putting it into the paragraph, as it will only make the section seem wordy. Though describing the album is good, when describing the tracks each separately, please do that on the album's actual page. Before anyone starts reverting my edits, editing in their own, or whatsoever, please compare to those of other artists (such as Mariah Carey and Celine Dion)and try to see if the information you're putting back or on there is worth it. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article is modeled after Celine Dion's, per a suggestion in this article's peer review. As you'll notice in the [Dion's] article, Dion's personal life is discussed (the section is titled "Life and Music Career"); moreover, individual tracks (though not all) are described. However, I agree that the CD+DVD info should be omitted, and the part about Oricon's only having fifty-one weeks can be put in a footnote. Thanatous (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamasaki's birth name

What is Hamasaki's official birth name? 濱崎歩 or 浜崎あゆみ? I know that in most cases, the given name is written in kanji; however, female names are mainly written in hiragana (at least according to about.com.) Also, is 濱 still used? I thought that it had been replaced by the shinjitai 浜. Thanatous (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Her birth name is 濱崎歩. Doesn't it say that in the article anyway? (And the Japanese article?) I think hiragana usage is a pretty recent thing. And yeah, apparently 濱 has been changed to 浜. That's the character used on her official site...Eugeniu B (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it at least be 浜崎歩? Thanatous (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of female names being written mainlyin hiragana. If anything that's a recent trend. 68.184.214.97 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)C

As per the Japanese article, her official birth name (本名) is 濱崎歩; the usage of hiragana or katakana in one's name over and above the kanji one was given at birth is not uncommon for performers (cf. Utada Hikaru, whose name is 宇多田光, but she of course uses 宇多田ヒカル, with katakana). 濱 has been changed in general use to 浜, the shinjitai, like Thanatous said, but personal and place names continue to use both old kanji forms and kanji variants (cf. the Japanese 新字体 article-- yet another reason functional Japanese literacy does not equate to being able to read place or personal names at first glance). Using hiragana or katakana for female names has gone in and out of fashion over the years, the same way ending girls' names with 子 has. Kanji used to be considered unfeminine, which contributed to its lack of use for girls in previous decades, but that stigma is more or less gone now, and hiragana, katakana, and kanji are all used to suit parents' taste (cf. 松たか子, the actress). etsuko (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On second glance, like Eugene B said, she does use 浜崎, but that appears to be a personal choice (like using あゆみ over 歩), since it's definitely not dictated by the shinjitai reforms. the etsuko (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not very well versed in Japanese naming protocol, obviously. Thanatous (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments

I started to look this over, but I realized that I won't have time to review such a long article. A few things I wanted to mention from the beginning, though:

Near the end of the lead "her first original eight studio albums seems redundant" - are both "first" and "original" necessary?

I use original to distinguish her albums that don't have original content (such as her compilation albums), but that might just be a quirk of mine. Would the MoS dictate an omission of "original"? Thanatous (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference 6 should be moved to after a punctuation mark.
Is a reference available forher mother always working and her grandmother being the primary caretaker?

Yeah; fixed, thanks. Thanatous (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What did she confess to Matsuura? Her truancy?
"Unpretentious" is an awkward word choice. It seems to border on POV.

My biggest concern was the coding problem in the "Childhood and early endeavors" section. Please look at the "Time" reference after "not well-received by the general public." Because the reference doesn't end, almost one full paragraph does not appear in the text of the article. I hope this helps with a few of the initial concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Thanatous (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The GA review is here. It's only partial, but those concerns should be addressed first before I go on to review the rest. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy?

Do we really need one paragraph to describe the tracks on her albums in here? There's a reason why all her albums have a page of their own. In here, it's just taking up a lot of space and making her article seem long. In addition, her personal life doesn't really affect her career that much so I don't think we really need it. I mean, unless the relationship put her career on hold or something like that then I guess we could keep it, but Hamasaki draws a line between her personal and professional life anyway so it doesn't really overlap each other. I know it's supposedly modified after Celine Dion's but still...There's a lot of things in here that's unnecessary and it's just taking up a lot of the room. Her career section also seem to just go on and not get to the point at all niether. 206.40.103.36 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is titled "Life and music career," not just "Music career," so information concerning her personal life would not exactly be off-topic in it. Perhaps the sections concerning the albums are a bit lengthy; however, let's get the opinion of the other editors first, as I personally do not think they're unduly long. Finally, what do you mean by "get to the point"? The article is not really trying to "make a point." This is an encyclopedia, so it's just a collection of facts, not personal opinion. Thanatous (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most bio entries on musicians, actors and other entertainers tend to separate Life and Career under different headings because it is confusing and detracts from the easy, go-to style of most Wiki articles. It's a fine bio, but it needs to be cleaned up. 68.184.214.97 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) C

What I meant by "get to the point" is that the article just seem to over explain things just a little bit. Did Hamasaki did this, or did she do that? Does it really matter if Hamasaki stated that she broke up with her lover on her website? Can it just read "despite much speculation by the press of a possible marriage, Hamasaki and Nagase ended their seven-year relationship..." or something like that? Does it really matter if "Mirrorcle World" has two press edition containing one of the same b-side and two different b-sides because it's Hamasaki's 10th anniversary in the music industry? That's what I meant. 206.40.103.95 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Over explain"? Sometimes, Hamasaki did "this" and "that." None of Hamasaki's previous singles (prior to "Mirrorcle World") had been released in such formats, so it is probably worth noting. However, you are probably right concerning the paragraph on her breakup with Nagase; I'll edit it. Thanatous (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the paragraph describing her album is a bit lengthy. But "over explain" is hardly more than an exaggeration. I wouldn't say it "over explain" things. Rather, it contains just some redundant information. That's about it. As for Avex experiencing a 13 yen decrease in its stock or something like that, I never really understand how Hamasaki's hearing loss supposedly affect that. Mind explaining anyone? Too peachy (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know myself, but that's what the reference said... Thanatous (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery?

Not to be a huge downer on the Ayu party, but isn't this an important element of the evolution of her image that's being ignored? One cannot honestly say that Ayumi Hamasaki hasn't had extensive plastic and dental surgery. It might be a bit controversial to mention, but it's a huge part of her image and a huge omission for anyone hoping to represent a complete and unbiased bio. There are plenty of pictures out there and the fact that there are no pictures of her even from her early years as a model is frustrating, too. References: http://wiki.theppn.org/Ayumi_Hamasaki http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t28792.html C68.184.214.97 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to disregard the matter (it is well possible, who knows), but I don't think I can believe a forum poster who does not know the Shift key should not be pressed every other letter he types in his user name, nor another wiki ;-) Can you find a Forbes, Time, BBC, New York Times, Mainichi or some other reliable publication talking about them? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly say I DON'T KNOW that she's had any sort of plastic surgery. She may have. Of course some people grow into their looks. Watching videos of her from fifteen years ago she's instantly recognisible. Name me one person who looks the same at thirty as he or she did at fifteen. You can't just put something in because you "know" it's true. Believing something does not make it true.72.67.93.133 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree! She probably didn't have anything done, it could be Photoshop or make up, I mean, have you seen what make up can do for you? Besides that, she was a teen then. Even though, I think her face shape has changed slightly and her eyelids, but she could of lost weight, and as for her eyelids, Photoshop or make up. But it really needs proof for that stuff. Ariana-hime (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the examples in the forums are all promotional images. Which means that there seriously is a 99% chance that she's had makeup and extensive computer enhancements. But that's not to be certain, have you ever looked into her being naturally beautiful? :) Eugeniu B (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Most expensive videos

The article cites just one external list of expensive music videos. (It appears to cite two, but the second is merely a mention of one Hamasaki song.) That list clearly lists George Michael. So it's strange to say that Hamasaki is the only non-American. I changed the article accordingly, but then noticed that there's grudging recognition via note "g" of Michael's claim, if the Sun is to be believed.

I'd agree that the Sun is only suitable for use in your smallest room, and I haven't any interest in Michael. But what's going on here?

I'm tempted to remove "g", but this would necessitate other manual changes. Reverting these would be irritating. So I leave the decision (and the work) to others. Morenoodles (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

When I added that section to the article, the list cited did not include Michael (as you can see from the access date on the citation, the page was accessed in January 2008, at which time the list did not include Michael. An archived version of the page from June 2008 still does not include Michael.) Now that MSN includes him, I suppose I'll just remove the footnote and change it to "Hamasaki is one of the two non-Americans..." or something. The Transmogrifier (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. (Sorry, I didn't investigate that closely.)

NB Wikipedia seems to take "Americans" to mean "people of the US" and thus to exclude Cubans, Haitians, Canadians, etc.; are all the others from the US? (I don't even recognize the faces of several of them.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you changed it to "non-anglophone". That's good, I think that's better on WP than "non-American".

Yeah, all on the list except for Michael and Hamasaki are from the US. As to why most people use "Americans" to mean people of the US, I guess it's because it would be kind of hard to make a demonym out of the US's full name ("American" is easier on the tongue than "United-States-of-American" or whatever). Most people are pretty lazy when it comes to speech. :P The Transmogrifier (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Embedded question

Please note the VAGUE tag and question embedded in one of the first "footnotes" (not "citations"). I could almost guess the answer but wasn't completely sure so decided not to.

Sorry to be irritating but if the improvements continue just a little this should go to FAC (yet again!) and will deserve to become FA. But let's not push it; be patient. Morenoodles (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing that out. Changed it from "records and charting positions" to "sales and charting positions", since all her records (sales records/milestones) already point out that they apply only to Japan. Ink Runner (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Official website

I changed her official website link to the actual URL. I noticed that this is done in other good and featured articles, such as Mariah Carey and Tila Tequila, so I'd figured it'd be alright to do here. Lady Galaxy 03:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Generally, the protocol prefix (usually "http://") is omitted (see the Carey and Nguyen articles cited above), so I've done that here, too. TJRC (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Thanks for fixing it for me! Lady Galaxy 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Feeble sourcing

Yes, yes, I know, this article is crawling with footnotes. However, when I come to look at them.....

Here's an example:

The influence of Hamasaki's music, sometimes considered one of the major forces in shaping Japan's current music trends,[79] has been attributed to the "progressive sound" of the music as well as her self-penned lyrics;[79]

These are very grand statements. I didn't mean to catch anybody out here, but did wonder what her influence was, so I rushed to footnote 79 to take a look. By the time you read this, what was 79 may no longer be 79, but anyway it's now this: "Ayumi Hamasaki" (there described as AskMen.com feature on Ayumi Hamasaki that includes pics, pictures, biography, video, related news, vital stats, commentary, and cool facts). And there are two problems.

First, a big difference between (a) what this source is claimed to say and (b) what it actually says. What it says is:

there’s little doubt that she’s played a substantial role in shaping the current pop music scene. Ayumi has also gone against the grain of the music industry by writing all her own lyrics, and she has received praise from fans and critics alike for the unusually honest and profound nature of many of her songs.

Yes, this says that she has been very influential, although it doesn't say how. (Later, it says that the fashion industry waits with baited breath to see what her latest look is, as it won’t be long before her millions of fans are clamoring to look exactly like her. Note that there's nothing specific about music.) It does not attribute this influence (on music? on fashions?) to her music or lyrics, and it doesn't even say that other people attribute it to her music or fashions.

Secondly, there's no indication that this is written by people who know what they're talking about. It's unsigned, it doesn't cite anything, it doesn't display any knowledge of Japanese, and it includes such tabloid hyperbole as

There’s no doubt about it, Ayumi is the biggest thing to hit Japan since Godzilla

and

It’s no wonder that many designers are climbing over one another to work with Ayumi, including Bulgari, Louis Vuitton, and Juicy Couture.

and it ends:

SECRET WISH To spend an afternoon in the recording studio with Ayumi Hamasaki.

It's from some site called "askmen.com", whose current top page offers stories that include:

IS MADONNA HOT?
IS TOM CRUISE COOL?
CAN WOMEN HANDLE MONEY?
IS CHEATING ACCEPTABLE?

(Their capitals, not mine.) My impression is that while this may be the kind of stuff that male birdbrains like to read while having their hair permed, it doesn't start to qualify as a source for an encyclopedia article. Yet it gets sourced three more times within the article.

What am I missing? Morenoodles (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second footnote from the influence of Hamasaki's music, sometimes considered one of the major forces in shaping Japan's current music trends, has been attributed to the "progressive sound" of the music as well as her self-penned lyrics. Quite aside from the credibility of this askmen.com article, it does not attribute the influence of her music to its progressive sound or the lyrics. Morenoodles (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not my place to say this, but I've always thought askmen.com wasn't a reliable source for Wikipedia... Lady Galaxy 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, as a lady? Don't let that stop you. I happen to be male, but I wouldn't hesitate to criticize sourcing to an equally dubious magazine for women. -- Morenoodles (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't reply to this faster, but an emergency came up... Anyways, I have print sources that can be used to cite some of the statements that currently use AskMen for reference; I'll remove all the statements I can't find sources for. Ink Runner (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready for FA candidacy?

It looks like all the major issues have been ironed out—prose (specifically the wordiness), citations, and a fair-use image—but I want to see what everyone else thinks. Ink Runner (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks alright to me. I think that you should go ahead and try for featured article status again. But I noticed one thing: the Ayumi symbol (in the footnotes) is broken. I thought it was just me, but the icon isn't showing up and it's been that way for a few days now... You might want to try and fix that before you nominate it once more. Lady Galaxy 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. But that was odd, the picture wasn't deleted or anything. Thanks! Ink Runner (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image listed couldn't be more different than the one listed for one of her songs, poker face. (please do not expect a reply very quickly if you reply)--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is indeed Ayumi Hamasaki in both photos. I think it's just the makeup... Lady Galaxy 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)