Talk:Babymetal/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • BabyMetalBABYMETAL – Undiscussed move. After it was contested and reverted by me, the editor moved the page again and edited the redirect to prevent me from moving it back. Moscow Connection (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from speedy

  • Comment after reversion, it should be opened as a regular move request, because it falls under MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM being "BabyMetal" or "Babymetal" as the proper form -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyway, any future discussion can't possibly result in "BabyMetal" where it is now cause MOS:TM says: "CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage" and "BabyMetal" is never seen before. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment shouldn't this have been reverted per WP:BRD practice now being enforced by WP:RM? (see WT:RM for discussions implementing this) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move somewhere from here fast. "BabyMetal" is outrageous.
    I think it would be right first to revert it back to "BABYMETAL" and then to propose to move it to "Babymetal" as the simplest way to write it in lower case without adding extra spaces, etc.
    But I must say that currentsly I haven't seen any articles about the group in reliable Western sources. Reliable Japanese English-language sources like Kawaii Girl Japan (example) and BARKS (example) write the name as "BABYMETAL". Big Japanese online shops in English write "BABYMETAL" (HMV) or "BABY METAL" (CD Japan). But at least I've seen "Babymetal" (and occasionally, very rarely "Baby Metal") in unreliable sources like music sites and blogs.
    By the way, if you look at the article traffic statistics, it receives a considerable amount of views lately. I will try to find where the group was written about in the beginning of June. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:MOSTM: "avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS". Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a clear cut case here and the current time is not even remotely outrageous.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MOS:ALLCAPS. Amazon gives "Babymetal". Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 November 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

BabyMetalBabymetal – The most common name is still "BABYMETAL", but it is followed at some distance by "Babymetal". Since Wikipedia guidelines prohibit all-caps, I propose to move the article to "Babymetal".

Please move the article cause I don't think I saw the name written as "BabyMetal" anywhere. We should use a way of writing that has been used by reliable sources. The two listed above are the most reliable non-Japanese language sources that don't write it in all caps I've found. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Moscow Connection (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support - seems fair enough. Amazon mostly uses the proposed form: [3]  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content dispute

User Moscow Connection has reverted me twice after I tried to add sourced material because he/she thinks its "irrelevant", "incorrect" and lacks sense. Since the explanation of their name is an obviously relevant information, I've added it back, this time with a direct link to the source instead of using Blabbermouth.net and with a minor rewording. I also grouped both new sentences in the same paragraph, since the previous layout was indeed a little confusing. The fact that they are working on a genre they haven't before is also relevant and taken from that same source. Both pieces of information are there, easily checkable. There is simply no valid reason for removing it. More of our opinions on the matter can be read here and here, but I will try to center the discussion here now. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Your edits really looked like someone had just discovered the band and was now adding nonsense to Wikipedia. (Sorry, no offense. :D)
    Is the expression "to have contact with metal" (you wrote "None of the members have ever had contact with heavy metal before") some sort of a word by word translation from Portuguese? Cause it sounded very strange. Now I have reworded it.
    To a person who have followed the band for awhile and have never heard the story before, it is quite obvious that the thing about "a newborn genre" is a newly invented explanation. This is precisely one of those controversial cases when a first-party source can't be used.
    By the way, do you realize that they weren't the ones who invented the band's name? Do you know what Sakura Gakuin is?
    You should listen to people who know about the subject a little bit more than you. Sorry. And thank you for adding the sentenсe about them not having known what heavy metal music was before the band was founded. I think it's a great contribution to the article. Moscow Connection (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Who cares if you know this better than me? Or when I discovered the band? And since when sourced information is nonsense? This is called a free encyclopedia for a reason, you know. But OK, since you refuse prefer to call my edits "nonsense" and to use discouraged arguments instead of actually providing a valid reason for removing the sourced origin of their name, I'll have to request external comments on this issue. Only after that we'll have it settled. This could have been so much easier, still don't understand why you prefer to make a war out of a small edit. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Requested a third opinion here, I will not edit the article again before someone makes a comment. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I am sorry if you think that I am tryng to bully you. You see, I didn't intent to edit Wikipedia today, but I saw your addition and I thought it was so very wrong that I had to log in. You reverted, and I had to return again just because of that. I might have been too emotional, but I was just trying to restore the article to a normal state. To me, this story about the "baby" part is absolutely unbelievable, beyond any possibility. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:SELFSOURCE (at least 1 and 4; probably also 2 since they obviously weren't the ones who invented the name and therefore couldn't actually know). I have provided a valid reason. You don't seem to listen. This is not a small matter. I see you trying to add a misleading statement (originally two misleading statements) to Wikipedia and I revert.
The only way for you to convince me would be to do a search for third-party sources dating a few years back and find an old third-party source.
(The other would be to use the Internet Waywack Machine to find an official definition for the Sakura Gakuin's heavy metal club and its band from back when it was founded. That would demonstrate what "baby" stood for originally.)
At present, all you have is a very recent interview. At, least, do some search and try to find some other source, anything. That would not convince me (see above), but at least that would give your claim some weight. I suspect you have already looked and found no sources except this interview. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: My interpretation of this source is that the musicians consider their own brand of metal to be a newborn, or 'baby' genre. It could be worthwhile to include this explanation, noting that this is what how the musicians interpret their group's name, or that this a new interpretation of the name Babymetal. If there was some previous or alternate definition of their name, it might be worthwhile to include that too, giving each one weight appropriate to its credibility. Note that this wouldn't have to take up a large chunk of the article, both descriptions could probably be described in a sentence or two. Breadblade (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • KOBAMETAL (the band's producer) said in an interview to Nikkei Trendy Net: 「BABYMETALでは、メンバー3人のかわいらしさとメタルの激しさとのギャップ感を大切にしている。「ヘビーメタル」をもじった「BABYMETAL(ベビーメタル)」というネーミングは“お告げ”によって降りてきたものだが、“BABY”でかわいらしさ、“METAL”で激しさをわかりやすく示すことができ、また「新しいメタルが誕生する」という願いも込めて採用した。」
    In short, the name came to him by revelation (as a "divine message"). It is a play on the words "heavy metal". "Baby" may indicate cutess, "metal" — intensity. Also, he have came to liking to interpret it as "new metal is born". Something like this. Source: [4].
    Victor Lopes, could you please translate the section "Origin of the band's name" (that I've just added) for the Portuguese Wikipedia? Cause I decided to check what was going on there and you used the same interview, making it look like the name was originally meant to indicate a newborn genre. I am sorry for the reverts, but, as you may now see, I was right. (They are babies, that's why the group is called Babymetal. :D) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, you were so damn right that in the end you gave in to the third opinion kindly provided by Breadblade and did exactly what I was trying to do since the start. No, actually, you even created an entire section for that information, with one extra source, while I was happy enough with a minor sentence. And that extra source actually confirms what my source said. In other words, you made a mountain out of a molehill - for nothing. My job here is done, hope we can work peacefully next time I try to improve this article. Happy editing, Victão Lopes Fala! 13:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The article now tells a completely different story. I added your version only as a newer interpretation. The current version about the "divine massage" makes perfect sense to me, which could not be said about what you wrote. :) Moreover, you added the info into the history section as if the band was intentionally named to mean it was of a "newborn genre". And I actually found a good source. I used Breadblade's exact words cause I liked the way he said it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, there are at least three different stated reasons the band is named what it is (you may have to wait for me to grab the source that has the third one). All are technically valid in terms of reliability and understanding of the band. And IMO, the "naming" section should either be in the history section as a subsection or it should be completely merged into the section, perhaps near the beginning. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Moa and Yui articles

Due to WP:MUSBIO (#6), since both Moa and Yui are members of "two or more independently notable ensembles," Babymetal and Sakura Gakuin, it should be all good if they get their own articles (that is, if someone wants to make them). --Prosperosity (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to make them! I will in a couple of days. Thank you for your suggestion! (Sadly, the Japanese Wikipedia didn't have the same rule the last time I checked.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Babymetal

Cyberbot II has detected links on Babymetal which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://t.co/7B21PbTPsF
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist
  • http://t.co/sEk5Ss94ep
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Babymetal

Cyberbot II has detected links on Babymetal which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://t.co/7B21PbTPsF
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist
  • http://t.co/sEk5Ss94ep
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BABYMETAL on Commons

Enjoy the pictures I'd uploaded on Commons and be sure they'll not be deleted! :D https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BABYMETAL GUROMETAL (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have made various edits that seem to be reverted for some reason, here is the list of edits I made and why:

  • Genres in the infobox - The genres in the infobox should be made minimal to 2 or 3 genres and made to generalise the band/musical artist, in this case, Jpop and death metal since they are two genres most associated with the band, details about the bands genre and overall sound should be made in the 'Musical style' section as that goes into detail about their overall sound. References have also been moved there, and I do plan to expand the section to go into further detail.
  • The discography - No idea why you number what single came out first as it's organised into tables that way anyway, also if you look at every featured artist discography, it will be in the format I have placed it in now, simple, clean and easy to follow.
  • Members section - You do NOT have to put the ages of the members here, only their name, roll and in the instance of line-up changes, they duration they had that roll, personal details such as their age are already on their own articles, it doesnt need to be mentioned here on this article.
  • Repercussion in social networks - I did what was asked, I transformed the list into the prose, what's wrong with that?

If there are anymore disagreements with what I've done, please ask why I have done that BEFORE you revert again, I have my reasons for doing so, and if you are in the right, I will correct it myself, otherwise the major differences so far have aided the page, not the opposite. SilentDan297 talk 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, it might be a good idea to refrain from adding several huge changes all in one single edit, especially when you mix up good and bad edits, bad edits being the removal of valid well sourced content, as you have done.
Concerning genres: the requirements for genres are stated here, and it says nothing about 2 - 3 genres. Genres, like every other data in Wikipedia articles, must be sourced. There are several reliable sources which categorize this band as jpop, heavy metal, death metal, thrash metal etc. and they are all in the infobox. The rest of your edits were ok, what is not ok is removing well sourced content, and replacing genres with your favourite unsourced genres. 93.135.12.4 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If you look at several good articles, such as: Linkin Park, Daft Punk and The Beatles, notice how the genres in the infobox are either 2 or three genres? And notice that the sources for those genres are NOT in the infobox? This makes it clean and easy to understand, before my edit, it contained many genres and was cluttered with small notes and footnotes, which is just cluttered and ugly to look at, for a more detailed description of the bands sound, you read the Musical style section, not the Infobox.
Also did you not read the reason why I left those two? They are the two most referenced genres, they are not my favourite, if I had my way, it would be a mixture of Synthpop, Trance and Melodic Death Metal, but they are not referenced, so I haven't done that. SilentDan297 talk 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as you refuse to add sources to your edits, and you keep on removing well sourced genres, your edits will be considered the edits of a Genre Warrior, someone who wants to force his favourite genre unto a band article. Please stop removing sourced material, add your good edits, and leave the bad edits out. Thank you. 93.135.12.4 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You are still not reading what I have wrote have you, you are lazy and unresponsive, if I was a genre warrior, I would have placed Synthpop, Trance and Melodic Death Metal into the infobox as I personally believe those are the genres I think best describe the group, but I am reasoning with you and so far you are ignoring my reasoning, if anything YOU are the genre warrior as you will not have it any other way. Carefully read what I have said to you before and realise that the edits to the infobox are in fact correct. SilentDan297 talk 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have shown you the infobox musical artist template, it says nothing of "2 - 3" genres in one band article. There are scores of band articles in Wikipedia with more than 2-3 genres in the infobox and all the genres are properly sourced. You simply want to lay the "death metal" genre unto this band article (which is a valid well sourced genre), while at the same time ignoring the other well sourced genres, such as heavy metal, speed metal etc. Please acquaint yourself with WP:V, and please kindly refrain from name calling, and using insultive words. I have fully read what you have written. Can you please then show me which Wikipedia Content Guideline, Policy or Style Guideline are you referring to when you mention "2 - 3 genres" per band article? 93.135.12.4 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If all your doing is following the template then fine, if you look at the examples it provides it is the same story there, only three genres for each artist and it is not referenced there, it will be referenced in the article itself, in this case the Musical style, of which ALL genres have been placed there. SilentDan297 talk 17:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this message. Now we're discussing reasonably. We can now try to establish community consensus which genres should appear in the infobox. Please note that the band itself does not refer to their music as death metal, but heavy metal (check here) - even though we all know that most of the band's songs are a mix of death metal/power metal with japanese idol pop music. All of these genres are well supported by reliable sources (e.g. mtv, allmusic, huffington post, times, guardian, rolling stones, etc.). Since this band has a mix of a couple of major genres (heavy metal/death metal/power metal mixed together with jpop), I opt for the inclusion of all these genres in the infobox. Let's wait and hear from other editors who frequently edit this article. Thank you. 93.135.12.4 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would be better to simplify the genres, 'melodic speed metal' for instance is not a real genre, just a means to describe the group, if anything that can just be mentioned in the musical style. Symphonic death metal is a sub-genre of death metal, so again, can go down into the musical style so as we can generalise the infobox, as the template says we should. This then leaves us with the three primary genres, and I'm not sure why this isn't in the musical style in the first place: "J-pop (more precisely, idol music)", this should definitely be mentioned in said section, it should not be there as it is an explanation of how they sound, and also Idol music sounds like another way of saying pop music, and it isn't even a genre, just a way to describe how they sound. Leaving us with Heavy metal, j-pop and death metal. We can leave the references in if you so desire but there's really no point. SilentDan297 talk 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More on reactions and spreading

I wonder if we can include Twitter or Facebook reactions from notable musicians, and the fact that TheFineBros made a YouTubers React video with Babymetal which sure helped them to become more popular. Lately they opened up an English website and put their music on iTunes and Spotify, and they play at a rock/metal festival in the UK on the main stage and at Lady Gaga concerts in the US, I have to admit that's something. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article did initially have it's own section dedicated to reactions made by celebrities on Facebook and Twitter however it used primary sources (used the actual comments and tweets) so was seen as more trivial, as for the YouTubers React video, that was in that section but after the rest of the content was removed it didn't seem to fit into place as I merged it into the History section since it was so small. If you can find anymore information regarding their viral success then please let us know here and we can add it again.
As for their concert and festival participation's I have been intending to add to their Live performances section as they are more commonly associated with metal and rock festivals more than your average pop festival, but their tour with Lady Gaga has already been mentioned in their History section so I doubt that needs repeating. SilentDan297 talk 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some mistakes

Hello guys!! Well, I saw some mistakes in the Discography section. First, the self titled album was also released as CD+DVD, and I guess that is important to put It there. Second, in the Music Videos, MIKIKO (or, in the case, MIKIKOMETAL) was not the director of the video, MIKIKOMETAL is BABYMETAL's coreographer. And third, on the Video albums, the "LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~" was not released as CD and digital download, just DVD and Blu-ray. Well, I just wanted to say It to the editors here. I just edit in the portuguese article because my english is not that good. I hope you guys edit It! See U! GUROMETAL (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, just applied them to the article now! SilentDan297 talk 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome!!
GUROMETAL (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tours

Hello everyone! :D Why you guys don't try to make articles to BABYMETAL's tours? I did It in the portuguese wiki (with great references). Would be cool if you do It! :D If you haven't seen It, here's the links to BABYMETAL DEATH MATCH TOUR 2013 -May Revolution- and the BABYMETAL WORLD TOUR 2014.
GUROMETAL (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

An article based around all of their tours at the moment isn't required, there isn't really much to go on and would result in a stub article so for now it would be best to have all of their tour coverage remain here. For example the list of Metallica concert tours contains a comprehensive list and a good amount of coverage, mainly due to both their popularity but also due to the fact they've been touring since the 80's, making this article notable. Until Babymetal has such coverage and has also been on many tours for many years, there is no need and can all be mentioned on this article instead. SilentDan297 talk 22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see.
GUROMETAL (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

The whole article needs a complete rewrite because it has badly written English. 178.167.254.148 (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a Japanese user: [5]. I've reverted it for now, but maybe it can be rewritten. (Actually, Ryotax0710 is the main contributor to the Japanese article.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of experience with English sentences. --Ryotax0710 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ryotax0710: Can you find some sources for what you wrote (about the fox sign, colors, gothic clothes, choreography, backup acts, fans, etc.)? Cause the "特徴" section in the Japanese Wikipedia is also unsourced. I will be happy to add something about it to the article, but I need reliable sources.
As for the links I've removed, I did it because people in the English Wikipedia don't like it when there are many links. If there are three, it looks okay. But if there are seven, someone who hates external links will eventually come and delete all except one or two. And then I will have to fight to revert it back to three.
By the way, this article is very popular (compare the views here in the English Wikipedia and in the Japanese Wikipedia), so you should visit the English Wikipedia more often. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: The sources is still insufficient though it tried to translate referring to a Japanese Wikipedia. Therefore, it consented to the deletion. Moreover, the sources in the part of "特徴" of a Japanese Wikipedia is insufficient though wrote referring to magazine Hedoban in "参考文献" part. I want to add the sources in detail in the future.
The rule of an English Wikipedia understood.
I am surprised at the number of visits of English Wikipedia. After studying English, I want to visit the English Wikipedia. --Ryotax0710 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ryotax0710: If you source the Japanese "特徴" section (I don't have the Hedoban magazine, so I can't do it myself), I will correct the English in what you wrote and add it back. For the most part, it is definitely worth including in the article.
Don't hesitate to ask me if you need assistance with something in the English Wikipedia. I can correct any sentences you want to add, etc. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: Thank you. It is reassuring. The sources of the article in "特徴" part is insufficient. After completing the sources by the Japanese Wikipedia, I want to demand the correction. --Ryotax0710 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ryotax0710: You are welcome. After you add sources in the Japanese Wikipedia, post here. Or, if I don't notice it, on my talk page. (You can also suggest the exact sentences to add.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I got it. --Ryotax0710 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Only sentences where the web source existed were translated from "特徴" part of Japanese Wikipedia. Could you please revise the following sentences.

  • The theme color of the group is based on red and the black. [6]
  • Not the sign of the horns but "Kitsune sign" (fox of the shadowgraph) is used though the element of Heavy Metal exists in music and the performance. [7] [8]
  • The image and the narration of the picture story show style that is called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" are used in a single concert. [11]
  • The tune of unit "Black Babymetal" (stylized "BLACK BABYMETAL") by the solo tune, Moametal, and Yuimetal of Su-metal exists besides a usual tune. [12]
  • The metallic arrangement version of some tunes of J-pop of year where the member was born is sung in the birthday concert ("Seitansai"). [13] [14]
  • Two kinds of backing bands exist, and "Babybone" (stylized "BABYBONE") is an mime backing band in skeleton suits, [15] [16] and "Full metal band" (stylized "FULL METAL BAND") becomes a live performance backing band in white robe. [17] It changes by the concert and the set list respectively. [18] [19] Moreover, "Sisterbone" (stylized "SISTERBONE") might join as a backing dancer. [20]
--Ryotax0710 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Give me a week or so to "gather strength" to do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I got it. (The sources was added.) --Ryotax0710 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ryotax0710: I'm sorry it took so long.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • The theme color of the group is based on red and the black.
    • Done.
  • Not the sign of the horns but "Kitsune sign" (fox of the shadowgraph) is used though the element of Heavy Metal exists in music and the performance.
    • Fox sign done. I'm not sure what to add about elements of heavy metal.
      Any suggestions?
  • Elements of the headbanging and martial arts, etc. are included in the choreography of the dance.
    • I'm not sure how to add this and what to add. I want to add something about dances and gymnastics, yes...
      Your links say:
      1. [21] "One of the charming features is aggressive performance that extends beyong the boundaries of an idol concert (featuring headbanging, a "race" reminiscent of the wall of death, etc.)" (ライブではアイドルの枠を超えたアグレッシブなパフォーマンス(激しいヘッドバンギングやウォールオブデスを彷彿とさせる“かけっこ”など)も魅力のひとつ。);
      2. [22]: "The choreography with the members fainting in the interlude is also cool." (間奏でメンバーが失神する振り付けもカッコいい。), "transcending the genres such as rock and idol" (ロック/アイドルといったジャンルを超越する);
    • What I have found:
      1. [23]: "In the fighting scene between the choruses, MOAMETAL showed more acrobatic performance like kicking with both feet."
      2. [24]: "doll-like dancing".
      3. [25]: "skilled singing and dance performances have become a hot topic of conversation", "The March 1 performance was titled "Akai Yoru LEGEND 'Kyodai Corset Matsuri'~Tenka Ichi Metal Budokai Final~," at which all of the spectators participated in the live by wearing neck braces.", "YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL excited the audience during "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" by sprinting down a pathway on the stage."
      4. [26]: "The training theme of the day was 'Wall of Death'. [Ijime, Dame, Zettai]began as YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL sprinted across the stage.", "YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL also pitched in perfectly with their dance performance."
    • Any suggestions?
  • The image and the narration of the picture story show style that is called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" are used in a single concert. [27]
    • I'm not sure. Was the picture story called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" used just once, at one concert? Then I'm not sure it's worth mentioning...
      I would add something about videos/"picture stories" with narratives being often used, but I'm not sure how to add this and what to say.
      Any suggestions?
  • The tune of unit "Black Babymetal" (stylized "BLACK BABYMETAL") by the solo tune, Moametal, and Yuimetal of Su-metal exists besides a usual tune. [28]
    • Why does the source say "Onedari Metal"? Is it some version of "おねだり大作戦"? How many songs do BLACK BABYMETAL have? "4の歌", what else? And does SU-METAL only have one solo song, "Akatsuki"?
      Could you suggest which section to add this in?
  • The metallic arrangement version of some tunes of J-pop of year where the member was born is sung in the birthday concert ("Seitansai"). [29] [30]
    • It was just one concert, so I don't know if it's worth mentioning...
  • Two kinds of backing bands exist, and "Babybone" (stylized "BABYBONE") is an mime backing band in skeleton suits, and "Full metal band" (stylized "FULL METAL BAND") becomes a live performance backing band in white robe. It changes by the concert and the set list respectively. Moreover, "Sisterbone" (stylized "SISTERBONE") might join as a backing dancer.
    • Done.
      Please check if I understood the sources correctly.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: There is no problem. Thank you for the retouch.
  • I'm not sure what to add about elements of heavy metal.
    Any suggestions?
    • The element of Heavy Metal is a metallic sound and a headbanging, etc.
      • One of the elements of heavy metal is Moa and Yui's Wall of Death. In heavy metal audiences, there is a mosh pit, and at the beginning of the concert, it is empty. When the band starts playing the two sides run towards each other and crash in the middle. This is called the wall of death. Yui and Moa recreate this for Ijime, Dame, Zettai (except for the crashing part)
      • Another heavy metal item is the theatricality,like when Suzuka is crucified at the end of Legend D. Alice Cooper has been hanging, beheading himself, basically killing hmself in shows for decades.
      • Another heavymetal element is shooting things to the audience, like in Summer Sonic when Yui and Moa shot smoke at the audience. Heavymetal bands have been throwing things at the audience for years (Ozzy Osborne uses water not smoke)
      • The element that i first noticed is the short fast paced concerts with few ballads. This is reminiscent of the Ramones, who played very quick high energy shows. Yes, I have been listeneing to metal for years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat1961 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to add this and what to add. I want to add something about dances and gymnastics, yes...
    • I selected these.
1."One of the charming features is aggressive performance that extends beyong the boundaries of an idol concert (featuring headbanging, a "race" reminiscent of the wall of death, etc.)" (ライブではアイドルの枠を超えたアグレッシブなパフォーマンス(激しいヘッドバンギングやウォールオブデスを彷彿とさせる“かけっこ”など)も魅力のひとつ。);
2."doll-like dancing".
  • I'm not sure. Was the picture story called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" used just once, at one concert? Then I'm not sure it's worth mentioning...
    I would add something about videos/"picture stories" with narratives being often used, but I'm not sure how to add this and what to say.
    Any suggestions?
    • I'm sorry. The word was wrong. ( × single concert ○ headlining concert. ) "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" is used many times in most headlining concerts.
      There is no conversation in the middle of concerts of Babymetal. Moreover, the novel on the picture is used in the middle of headlining concerts. [31] [32]
  • Why does the source say "Onedari Metal"? Is it some version of "おねだり大作戦"? How many songs do BLACK BABYMETAL have? "4の歌", what else? And does SU-METAL only have one solo song, "Akatsuki"?
    Could you suggest which section to add this in?
    • I think, "Onedari Metal" = "おねだり大作戦". [33]
      Tune of BLACK BABYMETAL is only "おねだり大作戦" and "4の歌" now. Moreover, solo tune of SU-METAL is only "紅月" and "悪夢の輪舞曲"[34] now.
      How about "Musical style" section?
  • It was just one concert, so I don't know if it's worth mentioning...
    • The "Seitansai" concert has been held three times up to now. [35] [36] [37]
--Ryotax0710 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ryotax0710: I've added the info about BLACK BABYMETAL (see the Members section), but I need to think about how to phrase the information about the "charming features" [38] and the "doll-like dancing" [39] and their "sprinting down a pathway on the stage" [40]. Everything else is much harder, I can't think of a way to make something about narratives or "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" sound encyclopedic. These details are probably not that important... I can also add somethng about the grawls in their songs if I have a reliable source for the info. (I remember you added to the article something along the lines that there were grawls, but they didn't perform them themselves.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: Thank you.
How about the following sentences?
  • "Doll-like dancing" [41], "Headbanging" [42], and "Wall Of Death or [Kakekko]" [43][44](sprinting down a pathway on the stage [45]), etc. are the charming features [46].
It consented. I will leave it to your judgment.
--Ryotax0710 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Your version doesn't sound encyclopedic in English. :) I have to think about how to add the information properly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a difficult problem...
--Ryotax0710 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Member names

Hi guys, I've noticed that throughout the article the girls are inconsistently referred to by the real names and then their stage names and this can easily confuse readers. For example, Suzuka is introduced as her real name, but then is referred to as Su-metal in the "2010–2012" section, and then she referred to as Suzuka again in the "2013–present" section. I think that the article should just refer to the members by their real names throughout (since those are the names of their individual articles) and their stage names should just be put in parentheses when they are initially introduced and in the members section. Azuxingmitalk 13:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done it, thanks for the suggestion. SilentDan297 talk 19:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi everyone - just one little question: why is it that the birth dates & years of the three girls were removed? This is especially important considering the context of "not having heard of metal prior the formation of the group" (or some such; i.e. in 2010 SuMetal was not yet 13, whereas MoaMetal and YuiMetal had just turned 11!). Also, this is important info that allows the reader to keep in mind the current age of the three girls. Mentarch01 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is dedicated to the group and is not a biography for each member, source material regarding the three members is mentioned on their own articles and this includes their age, their is no need to have their age mentioned in the members section. SilentDan297 talk 01:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Members order

Why the order of the members name here is SU-METAL, MOAMETAL and YUIMETAL? The correct order is SU-METAL, YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL.
Probably to you the order isn't important but, believe, this is. You can see when they introduce themselves, they always use this order. I don't know if somebody will correct It but should be better this way.
GUROMETAL (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in order of position in the band, in this case Suzuka Nakamoto is the lead singer so goes at the top of the three, then the other two share the same duties so to order them it must be in alphabetical order via surname which it is. SilentDan297 talk 03:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There's an official order, please don't change it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it to "SU-METAL, YUIMETAL, MOAMETAL". My mistake, I didn't notice. I probably put them in an incorrect order from the very beginning. (Someone want to fix the order in all languages? I don't have time now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Backing band members

Thanks to @GUROMETAL: for his information last time, I got curious to as what the Portuguese wikipedia looks like and what sources it holds, as it turns out, a lot! One particular subject I was interested in was the members of the backing band or Kami band in this instance as it actually has a table of current and former members which I found to be very informative, however looking at the references I couldn't tell who was in the band and who left, it confused me a bit.
Here are the two sources provided:

And in case you was looking for the Portuguese version of this article: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babymetal
I request that either in the members or the live performances sections have a simple list of the Kami band members, current and former. Perhaps if not done beforehand I will do it myself, but for me, its nearly 3am... I am shattered. Thank you for your time! SilentDan297 talk 01:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I will edit that section better because I forgot somethings. Btw, thanks for the appreciation of my work! :D
GUROMETAL (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! Be sure to share what you find on this page also when you get the chance! :-) SilentDan297 talk 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


I think the actual band members ought to be listed on this article. Here is a link with the info for the latest lineup on the 2014 EU summer tour (sorry I'm not great at tagging stuff like im supposed to) http://babymetal.net/babymetals-kami-band-explained/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.131.205 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the website link is for an unofficial therefore unreliable fan page, unless there is a reliable source confirming the line up. SilentDan297 talk 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the twitter pages for each of the members they all mention being a part of BABYMETAL
Takayoshi Ohmura, BOH, Aoyama Hideki and Leda. Also on their Facebook pages but I'm only linking one social media platform thank you very much. VampireKilla (talk) 10
56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to add a sentence listing some famous names who were members of the Kami Band / worked as live backing musicians for BABYMETAL into the "Live performances" section, but I'm against a standalone list of the backing band members. Cause I don't think there is any official information about who plays with the live band now and who played when. It may be that the musicians are meant to be anonymous. Anyway, try to look for reliable sources. Twitter and Facebook don't qualify. Instead of messages like "I play with the band" on Twitter try to find something like "Among the members of the Kami Band, there are such musicians as ... (guitarist from the band ...), ..." in some online music magazine or on a Japanese news website. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess, it's the same situation as with the band Buono!. Junko Sugawara played guitar for them and I've just tried to find some reliable sources about that and the best I've found were Buono! official blog posts. But their Japanese Wikipedia article has an subsection for the backing band in the Members section. (I guess fans know the details.)
By the way, rock fans should look into Buono!. It was created as a Hello! Project unit (subgroup) to sang songs for an anime called Shugo Chara! and evolved into a vocal pop rock band. Their must-hear song is "My Boy" (music video on YouTube). I also recommend "Rottara Rottara" (or "Lotta Love Lotta Love", the guitar riff in it is said to be a tribute to Led Zeppelin) (music video). --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Babymetal

Cyberbot II has detected links on Babymetal which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://t.co/7B21PbTPsF
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist
  • http://t.co/sEk5Ss94ep
    Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discography Layout

Why does the discography keep changing? The layout I formatted it into was correct, just look at literally every good or featured discography article and you will see the correct layout, this whatever people are changing it to is completely incorrect and is very messy and cluttered. Please discuss your reasons before you change it again. SilentDan297 talk 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fresh discussion

OK first things first, I apologise to @Moscow Connection: for the apparent aggressive behaviour I have shown and for the arguments I have caused, I meant no disrespect or offence from this. The reason I was getting so frustrated was due to the format this particular article was in since I am so use to editing articles in the specific format I have been taught, the edits I made where edits I have made on several band and discography articles In the past and when I first started editing I tried editing differently and I was told it was not supposed to be like that and that all articles had to be similar to remain consistent from article to article, making it easy to read from article to article since they all had a familiar structure and that was what I was trying to do here, make the structure of this article match those of higher standards so this article would also be to the same standard, I wasn't degrading the article by any means I was trying to improve it, It wasn't to make it look in a way I personally preferred I was trying to make it consistent.
Due to the amount of clutter I have caused on this talk page I thought it would be better to start a new clean fresh discussion with separate headings for each topic so as it would be easier to read and make to avoid disrupting the flow of discussions like the way I have in the previous discussion, again I apologise I just got immensely frustrated. Please discuss each different point in their respected sections and I will be sure to respond to them more fairly and not aggressive like I have been previously, I hope we can build the article up much more efficiently together. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The main issue I have personally remains to be the infobox, it should have just a couple of official genres (referenced of course) instead of six of them, as I have previously explained the following should be removed for these reasons;

  • Kawaii metal - This genre described the bands sound in two words; Kawaii being cute in Japanese culture, and Metal being the heavy genre in music, ultimately making cute metal. This is used as a means of promoting the band and is not an official genre, could be in the future if this catches on but as of now it remains unofficial.
  • Melodic speed metal - This, like Kawaii metal, is just a means of describing the bands sound, it's melodic, it's fast and it's metal, the difference being Kawaii metal is referenced multiple times and is used by the band and its label, this genre has only been referenced once so it doesn't appear to be that big of a deal, just because a genre has been mentioned by one news article doesn't mean is official.
  • Symphonic death metal - While this one is official it is actually a sub-genre of death metal, as I said I would like to keep it generalised and since this just a sub-genre I think it should be removed from here, although this doesn't appear to be too much of a problem since it is an official genre but personally I think it should remain in the musical style section.
  • Jpop or Idol music - They appear to be the same genre, but the way it currently states it sounds like Idol music is the sub-genre of Jpop so again to keep it generalised I would advise its removal, or it least have one of these removed since they appear to be the same thing.

Heavy metal and death metal are fine, they are referenced often and are generalised genres so they should remain since they both describe the bands sound well. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I am also sorry if the way I reverted you and warned you looked rude. By the way, I wanted not only to make the article look better, but defend the people who wanted to add things and whose additions had been reverted. I wanted to make them feel welcomed. That's why I added "kawaii metal" back. But I've deleted "kawaii metal" from the infobox already much earlier today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but several other editors have objected to your edits and added "symphonic death metal", "melodic speed metal" and "kawaii metal" back. Let's wait for more opinions. What I see now is that you want to delete "melodic speed metal", and therefore not mention speed metal at all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
So far 2 other editors have reverted my edits on the genres, one being an I.P. address who just seemed to have ignored every logical argument I used against him and another user I fail to remember since they haven't reverted me since so I hardly call that an objection, also you are wrong about "melodic speed metal" being completely removed, along with every genre mentioned in the infobox they are all mentioned in the musical style section so don't worry about that, it's is by no means being completely removed from the article. SilentDan297 talk 01:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But why remove "speed metal" from the infobox? If even we removed "symphonic death metal", there would be be only 4 genres with melodic speed metal. (Anyway, let's wait for more opinions. I think I won't reply here for a week or so in order to allow other editors to comment.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Because unlike "melodic speed metal", speed metal itself is not a referenced genre. I am really aiming to have just the three genres since they are the main generalised genres of the band since the rest are either sub-genres or genres not often associated with the band so there is no need to include them here when they can be explained in further detail in the musical style section as that is what that section is for. But I do agree with you means of waiting for the opinions of others, however what's your thoughts on the removal of Jpop or Idol music, you haven't really given you're opinion on that yet. SilentDan297 talk 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
All unsourced genres should immediately removed per WP:OR and WP:GWAR. Per discussions on Template talk: Infobox musical artist the genre should be generalized in the best way it can and should never include genres that do not have their own articles, as it would be considered fancruft. While taking that in mind, the only genres that should seemingly be listed are Heavy metal and death metal. Not to mention genres should be backed by more than a single source anyways. STATic message me! 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
All genres are sourced. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Avoiding responding the majority of the post does not help your side. That sentence was bred from these comments, not the article. STATic message me! 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not "my side". I simply responded to the part that concerned me personally cause I'm the one who referenced the genres in the infobox and who listed them the way they are listed now simply because these were the genres I succeded in finding sources for. As for everything else, I've already said that I don't have a strong opinion and I want to hear from the IPs who insisted on listing everything. (See #Recent edits.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with STATic in leaving in Heavy metal and death metal but also Jpop since it is used to describe the band, however once this point was raised I couldn't actually find the genre mentioned in many reliable sources that they are Jpop which baffles me, so due to this I agree, only Heavy metal death metal should be mentioned in the infobox. Also you shouldn't be appeasing to what sounds like fans to have the article in a specific way, they have their own fan bases for that and there is no need to do that here. SilentDan297 talk 21:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Members

Although minor I do believe any personal information regarding the members of any musician should remain on their personal articles opposed to being repeated on their associated band/group articles. I do recognise that their ages are a big deal since they are some of the youngest metal musicians known, but that has already been mentioned in the History section of the article so I see it irrelevant and repetitive to mention their birth dates and age in the members section.
I would also like to point out that while their name are in fact in capitals officials, they should be in lower-case throughout the rest of the article, and although MOS:ALLCAPS doesn't specifically state that names specifically shouldn't be in caps I think its basic principle should still apply and that only the first letter should be a capital but in the members section it should mention that their names are stylized in caps, much like how the bands name should be but is lower caps in the actual article and in the articles title. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • All these "stylized as" will make the list complicated. I think the birth dates should be there (especially since the list seems to be officially ordered by age). I believe there should be many ways to present the info, though. I think the table that was there originally looked better. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with the ages, however since "Babymetal (stylized BABYMETAL)" starts the article off I just believe that it would make sense, especially since the names are in sentence caps throughout the rest of the article to mention that the names are officially in capitals. It just makes it consistent and avoids confusion and also allows the readers to have a clear understanding that the members names officially are in-fact in capitals. I also believe the order of the members should be via surname however it doesn't bother me too much, that's just how I've edited members lists in the past and present. SilentDan297 talk 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that listing the members in sentence caps makes the list consistent with the rest of the article. And I agree that listing them in all caps would make the readers wonder why we listed them in all caps. Therefore I changed the list as you suggested. It is okay now? --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to point out after you reverted me just now that in a reliable secondary source the two younger singers are in fact clean singers, a secondary source is more valuable than a primary one so should be mentioned here, just because an official statement made by the band or its representatives say it's one thing doesn't mean that's fact, you even see them performing clean vocals live on stage anyway. SilentDan297 talk 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I reverted you again, but the members should be listed the way they are listed officially. These are official positions, it's incorrect to change their positions/instruments. (The official site states: "BABYMETAL is SU-METAL (Vocal, Dance), YUIMETAL (Scream, Dance) MOAMETAL (Scream, Dance)." See [47].) I believe WP:PRIMARY talks about interpretaions and such, but the profile is not a place for explanations or interpretations. (And I can't see where you saw the words "clean vocals" in the artilce you linked above. The article only says that Yui and Moa are backup vocalists. And keep in mind that Rocket News 24 is not a specialized music site and it is therefore a questionable source in this case.) (And as I said, it's simply a profile, and they should be listed the way they are officially listed.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Again I must disagree, I think logically they should include clean singers in their roles since the source calls them "singers/screamers/dancers" on the article and there are many videos with proof that the singers are in fact clean singers, I think due to the popular media this should be included, many people are aware that they do clean sing so until we get opinions of others it should be there to avoid confusion with readers of the article. SilentDan297 talk 02:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "clean singers"? The official profile doesn't say that they are guttural vocalists or anything. They perform screaming backup vocals, that's all it means. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
They perform clean backing vocals, also take this into consideration, the official site of Justin Bieber for example fails to state his recent crimes in drugs, drink driving and vandalism, does that mean he hasn't actually committed the crime? Although it is on a different scale the principle stays the same, primary sources can say one thing but fail to mention another, that's why we use secondary sources instead, just because an official representative says it's right doesn't mean it truly is until other more reliable sources agree, in this case the official site has failed to mention that they clean sing as well as scream, I think you yourself are aware that they clean sing in many of the bands songs both on the album and in live performances. SilentDan297 talk
My thoughts on this section: The stylizations are trivial and not really needed. The names and age (since the age is notable) are fine to include. Also the type of vocals should just be shortened to "Vocals" for brevity and to avoide edit conflicts over what is or isn't screamed/clean or who is the one performing them. In the end it is WP:OR. "dance" should be removed definitely as dancing my be a skill or talent, but it is not an instrument. STATic message me! 09:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Stylizations are necessary because they are written in all caps officially. We write their names differently on Wikipedia simply to comply with some Wikipedia style guidelines. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Addition: You see, SU-METAL, etc. are not "stylizations"/"stylized names", this is the actual way the names are written in Japanese. (It's very typical for Japan to write in English in all caps.) It's the way we write their names on Wikipedia that is stylization, stylization done in order to comply with some strange Wikipedia style guidelines. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the way you want to delete "dance" and change "screams" to "vocals" is also WP:OR. The band's official site [48] and Barks (a reliable Japanese news site) [49] say "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance". They are dancers, how is this something that can't be included? I object to any changes to what their official site says. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM. As for your second paragraph, you make it very clear you do not understand what original research is at all. Again, you are not adding any backing to your argument with that blatant incorrectness. You have not explained how dance is an instrument, which is what is listed in band member sections, not their occupations. Screaming is not an instrument either, it is a form of using your vocals in music, just like normal "clean" vocals, rapping and beatboxing. Wikipedia is not a mirror of their official site, to want to follow their official site that religiously is against Wikipedia policy. STATic message me! 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh and I now see they all have separate articles, so their ages and real names should be included there or elsewhere in the article, not in that section. STATic message me! 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a proof link to a Wikipedia guideline that would say that only instruments must be included. And again, what you say is actually WP:OR. I have sources, you are opposing saying things like "screaming is not an instrument", "not their occupations", which are simply your personal opinions. And that the list can't include ages or real names is not true, there's no guideline like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I wondered why you were somewhat rude to me, why you didn't even read the infobox you were discussing and why you were so happy when you found a reason to delete their ages from the list
Now i see: User talk:STATicVapor#Edit warring on Babymetal article. You came here simply to help SilentDan297 fighting me. I must say that it's not very nice of you. If you aim is to annoy me, could you stop please? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines is the guideline that answers your questions. Do your sources call dancing or screaming an instrument? You still sadly do not understand WP:OR, oh well. I am not giving opinions, if you would take five seconds to look at any GAs such as Blink 182 or Korn, they do not list occupations or the type of vocals they perform in the member sections. Also no rudeness, I just gave my honest opinion, if you do not like it, oh well. I am not here to help anyone, there was seemingly disruption going on and you do not need to be so uncivil. STATic message me! 11:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The band is not just a singing group, it is officially a "vocal and dance group", and they are dancers.
There's nothing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines what supports what you are saying. Other articles are not a valid argument. The profile is sourced. The profile is official. You want to change something that is reliably sourced and official, and you don't have a source that would say simply "vocals, vocals, vocals" for all of them. Therefore you want to change the list basing on your own original research. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If I had a source, I might even prefer to write something like "main vocalist, dancer" and "screaming backup vocalist, dancer" cause it would be more understandable for most readers. But I don't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the matter has already been discussed here: Talk:Babymetal (album)#A few problems with the article.... Both Purplewowies and I have their album and we both can confirm that even the album credits say "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance". It's as reliable and official as it can possibly be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@SilentDan297: Maybe something like "vocalist, dancer" and "screaming vocalist, dancer" wouldn't be a WP:OR cause it's just saying what their profile says, but a bit differently. How about that? --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Album liners are citable for that sort of thing; there's a template (though note secondary sources are considered more reliable; primary sources are to be used sparingly—if reliable secondary sources exist, those should normally take precedent, no matter how official a source is). And yes, the album liner does say that; it's not really OR as it is in a published, verifiable source. The real analysis should be into whether it is in a reliable enough source and whether it is important to include in the article. This whole thing seems more like an analysis of what's important to include and which sources are reliable more than anything else. I really didn't wanna be pulled into this... - Purplewowies (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that all roles should be changed to vocalist as STATic suggested, however I also believe that dancer should really be included however again I must agree to STATic since it does make sense to include only the instruments, It has also been mentioned throughout the article that the three vocalists also dance so doesn't really need to be mentioned here so just vocalist should suffice. Also as what STATic backed me up on their real names and birth years should be removed as it is mentioned on their own independent articles already and is also mentioned in this article as well. Also the all caps should actually be removed due to WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM. and @Purplewowies:he is not here to annoy you, he is here to contribute to this article as both you and I are here for, and even if you do have the official CD you can;t actually prove you do have it and it's still a primary source, so it shouldn't be used in any argument as it appears to be WP:OR. SilentDan297 talk 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fully aware he's not here to annoy me, I've just had a lot on my plate lately (especially this morning, sorry) and am not usually a super agressive editor of Babymetal articles. I don't really need to prove I have access to a source any more than a person using a paper or subscription source does; it only matters that the source is published somewhere that it can be verified, and there is a Citation Style 1 template just for album liners/notes. The real issue is that the source is primary and contains information that could be considered superfluous (elaboration on vocal uses and styles might be appropriate for something like a prose section detailing musical or thematic elements of their work, but that would be a section in which secondary reliable sources would be pretty much the only source acceptable in any way, especially when said primary sources don't elaborate anything past "Yui - scream" for example (and for that matter, secondary sources would have to actually be discussing the actual ins and outs of their voices, which they for the most part don't seem to do)). Basically, yes, I can verify that the liner says that, as can anyone that has access to it (and heck, the official site says it as well as the YouTube video announcing their world tour—it's not solely in their album), but at the same time, I don't believe it's needed to differentiate types of vocals unless explicitly discussing the vocals and the types they use in some sort of prose section. Part of me wonders if "lead" vs "backup" should be differentiated, but that's a different issue, somewhat. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies Purplewowies that comment was supposed to be for @Moscow Connection: since he stated that STATic that he was getting annoyed, you actually seem to be participating in the discussion fairly. So by the sounds of what you're saying are you agreeing to the suggestion that only the role "Vocals" should be mentioned here? Or are you suggesting that the two younger members should also be called "Backup vocals" as well, cause to me they are still vocalists so I don't think it matters. SilentDan297 talk 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was for me since I stated I didn't wanna be pulled in and I actually was cranky when I wrote my first message. XD I'm indifferent on a personal-opinion level, really, but considering even just the small consensus here (and the policy/guideline arguments used), I'm swayed to vocalist for the reasons most others (namely you and STATic) stated. So yes, I'm agreeing. As for vocals v. backup vocals (or differentiating Su as lead), that's something where I have no idea what is actually best; I mentioned it because I just don't know, actually. - Purplewowies (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No hard feelings, I have changed the roles to simply vocals. Also what is you opinion on the personal information being mentioned? Such as the birth dates and their real names as they have their own articles. SilentDan297 talk 16:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it back. The info was there from the time of the creation of the article (the table you deleted had everything, all the details and the official positions/instruments) and you changed it without a consensus. There are reliable sources that list them as "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance" and all your changes are based solely on your reflections.
It is just a matter of how you prefer the article to look. Could you leave the info in, please? If only for the sole reason of trying not to annoy people who care, who want the article to be as precise as possible. Who actually wrote the vast majority of the article and who are going to continue taking care of it and updating it, unless Wikipedia with its necessity to endlessly fight over small but very important details becomes too much of an annoyance for them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: You claim that I change the information without consensus when I just had 2 other editors agree with me (Purplewowies & STATic) and so far one other for the removal of their real names and birth years (STATic), you have no supporters at the moment so it is you who is now editing without consensus. I am not editing the page to how I personally like it I am editing it to how it is supposed to be via templates, guidelines and by example of many other featured and good articles. Just because something was there at the start of its creation doesn't mean it is correct to have it there, I think if anything you're being over-protective over this article since you created it (as evidenced here) but we have given examples, cited guidelines and we have more editors supporting the removal of dancers and just using vocals so please comply and don't revert this edit, you're just causing another edit war because it's not at the standard you personally prefer it to be, as for the names and birth years to be removed only I and STATic believe they should be removed but if no one else supports you that they should remain then they will be removed. SilentDan297 talk 11:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You could certainly ask for stronger consensus (or file an RFC, which I (personally) don't think is quite needed at this stage), Moscow, but to use arguments that those were there from the start and your opinion (and opinions of others who apparently haven't chimed in here) are more important because you wrote it and take care of it more is displaying bits of WP:OWN behavior. Can you show us an abundance of reliable secondary sources that specifically use the "scream, dance", etc. bits? Officiality doesn't make a source more reliable by Wikipedia's standards or more important. Piper's Picks says Piper Reese is the "Princess of the Press", but the Wikipedia article doesn't make mention of that title because it's not widely used in reliable sources. I personally believe it's okay to make mention of the types of vocals in a section discussing musical style or something of that type, in prose and backed up by reliable sources. I just think that in a list "vocals" or "vocalist" is best. (And to SilentDan, I'm sorry I haven't chimed in to the question you asked. I've been busy the past few days and I haven't had the time to really think about it. I don't have time right now, either (I've already typed too long and must be off to something else), but I promise to add my thoughts about the other later.) - Purplewowies (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I will find you 10 new reliable sources, okay? There won't be many articles in languages other than Japanese, though. I need time until tomorrow to search the net in different languages cause cause I want to find as many non-Japanese sources as possible. (They will be useful for me in the future anyway.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: Until then leave the members section the state most of us have agreed on and list them here, besides Purplewowies still agrees that either just "voclas" or "vocalist" is best anyway, list your references here and we will discuss it further, you are forcing you edits and causing yet another edit war so just leave it along until we can agree on its final format, and even if they are not mentioned on this section their roles will be mentioned in more detail in the musical style section anyway so there is no loss. SilentDan297 talk 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Rejoice, you got what you wanted. You succeded to drive me away from Wikipedia and therefore from contributing to this article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't be able to continue cause I'm going away again because of the edit war SilentDan297 started. I think the members section is incorrecnt, it was destroyed for no reason other that a desire of some editor completely new to the band, but I can't do anything...
Sorry, I wanted to find more sources, but I won't be able to continue like this.
Before I go, five more more reliable third-party sources. Cause I've found them already, so I may as well list them:
  1. JaME World: [50]
  2. AUX.TV: [51]
  3. TAF México: [52]
  4. CDstarts (Germany): [53]
  5. Natalie: [54] (see the profile on the right).
And the profile on the official website of Toy's Factory: [55] --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: My mission was never to drive you away from Wikipedia but to improve the article which you wouldn't collaborate on, I have already left a message on your talk page and hope you won't actually stop editing. I do not desire the article to be this way I just know it is by standards, if anything I desire the article like every other article to meet higher standards, it doesn't matter if I know the band or not. Also to anyone else still in discussion can you have a look at the sources linked, I'm not sure weather they are in fact reliable or not. SilentDan297 talk 18:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SilentDan297: Finally got back to this: "Also what is you opinion on the personal information being mentioned? Such as the birth dates and their real names as they have their own articles." I did some thinking and research (snooping around on higher quality idol and J-metal group articles within the scope of Wikiproject Japan) and... the short answer is a resounding... I don't know. I think it might be fine to mention them by their titles, as an article like X Japan seems to list the people who go by stage names by those names, but then those are the predominant names those people are known as. Basically, I could see it go either way, dependent on how they might best be known—stage names, or similar to the Spice Girls, where they are referred to by the band names to establish them but otherwise are referred to by their real names. *wonders if there is some sort of policy on stage name v. real name use* As for the birthdates... every idol group I could find (the highest quality of which on Wikiproject Japan's ratings was Momoiro Clover Z at B-class) listed birthdates, even for artists with their own articles, so... that seems to be the precedent, though typically, I would say no. I do wonder how much of the birthdate inclusion on idol articles is a byproduct of the industry from whence they came (where everything from birthdate to height and weight and blood type is available (Moa's is A, for instance)), and therefore, I wonder how much is appropriate for Wikipedia vs. how much is included here. I also wonder if there are even higher quality idol articles that might either back up or refute the birthdate angle. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It would make sense being mentioned by their band/group names and then have them linked to their own articles where their actual names are mentioned throughout their articles so yeah I am also all for having their band/group names mentioned only. As for their birth dates I still believe that they should not be mentioned here since it is both mentioned throughout the articles and on their separate articles. So that's me, you and Static who believe their real names and birth dates should be removed unless you do in fact believe that their years on this article should remain. Once we have consensus I or anyone who wants to to so will remove them. SilentDan297 talk 10:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the info should not be removed. I reverted you. Please stop edit warring. I think you are intentionally disruptive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection:: Do you seriously think you own this article? You do not. Just because you don't like this doesn't mean it's incorrect. Several other editors in this discussion agree to this removal while you are the only one who does not agree to this, stop reverting as you are the one causing the edit wars without consensus. SilentDan (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Where are these editors? You are lying. Purplewowies just said he wasn't sure.
I hope eveyone sees you are just being disruptive and intentionally uncooperative and are trying to sneak your changes in. I will have to spend a few hours on ensuring you are blocked for what you have done here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection:: Myself, STATic and Purplewowies. Purplewowies agreed to them being named by their stage names OR real names and not both, also stated that when it comes the birth dates being mentioned "...typically, I would say no." So there you have it, only stage or real names and their musical role to be mentioned here, also why are you reverting my discography edits when you have not spoken against them and also my means of keeping the article consistent by changing the names to just their band/group names so as it is easier to understand? There is no logic to what you are doing. SilentDan (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Psst, I'm a girl! ;) Further, I don't think both names should be mentioned beyond an initial identification (like what is in the first sentence). Past that, I think that the naming used should be consistent (i.e. not switching back and forth) and in line with what is in reliable sources (I'd have to scrounge around sources to see how different articles refer to them throughout their body, especially as most articles are introductory and will start out by using both to establish who they are, much like this article does; basically a little bit WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME, though those are typically used in relation to titles). As for the birthdates, I'm mostly unsure as it's really a... shift, I guess? between what my unresearched, gut opinion is (no birthdates) and the way non-nomination (non GA/FA) quality articles for idols treat them (yes birthdates). But I would say that there is, consensus, even if it could be interpreted as weak. If you'd like a larger consensus, Moscow Connection, consider asking at the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page for people to come and provide input (Musicians, Japan (or perhaps even the music taskforce specifically), Pop music, and Metal) or file an RfC to bring more input on what to do about the article's content. But do note that if you go to try to get people blocked because they've edited this article/discussed things on this page (unless they're obviously being disruptive), you are likely going to end up subject to WP:BOOMERANG. You need to assume more good faith, IMO. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Purplewowies: I agree that it would be preferable if the naming were consistent. But calling them Su-metal, Yuimetal, Moametal every single time wouldn't be consistent with the reliable sources used. I can't go through the sources right now, but I believe that in the non-Japanese media it's more common to call them Suzuka, Yui, Moa.
Also, the members are introduced in the lead of the Wikipedia article by both their real names and Babymetal names. Therefore, the readers would already know their real names and shouldn't be confused when they see "Suzuka Nakamoto" or "Suzuka" or "Nakamoto" or whatever.
Also, we can't add "stylized as SU-METAL", "stylized as YUIMETAL", "stylized as MOAMETAL" in the lead cause it would make the lead unreadable. And the current Members section provides the info about how their names are officially capitalized. I believe the info is absolutely necessary.
Also, I believe that the members are officially ordered by age and therefore it's required to list their ages.
Yes, I believe that SilentDan297 is disruptive and that he intentionally chooses to edit war instead of discussing. I will now create a separate section for this and explain thoroughly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, MOAMETAL, etc. are their stage names only for Babymetal activities. In Sakura Gakuin, they are Moa Kikuchi, etc. Therefore the situation is not the same as with X Japan whose members are known exlusively as Yoshiki, Toshi, etc. in their professional music activities. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Su-metal, Yuimetal and Moametal should definetly be used throughout the article, official sources merely call them by these names in capitals which we have already discussed should be avoided in the prose. To be honest I think adding the "stylized as SU-METAL" and so on anywhere in the article will make it look somewhat confusing and unreadable, just as you described it if it was in the lead. Also if you look at many band pages under FA status, the members are organised firstly by when they joined the band (From those who where in the band first to the latest additions) then it is secondly organised by name alphabetically, in the case of the artists having surnames its by that, in terms of nick-names I would think it would be by the first letter. I think the members section just needs to lose all that information apart from their stage names and musical talent, the rest is to do with the singers themselves which should only really be mentioned either in the article prose or their separate articles, makes the section easier to read and look a lot more organised. SilentDan (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. "Stylized as SU-METAL" is necessary cause the only official capitalization is all caps. By the way, if you don't understand it, it's very much doubtful whether "Su-metal" is correct cause it can be capitalized differently (e.g. "Su-Metal") and there's no official source for anything but "SU-METAL".
  2. The table you deleted presented the information the best and the clearest way.
  3. There's an official order, it can't be changed. (And btw, there are official positions, but since a friend who you specifically asked to come here and help you with an editor (me) who was "edit warring" helped you and reverted me, I can't do anything now.)
  4. What you say about the "time when they joined the band" and the "alphabetical order" is just an original research based on looking at some articles. (Btw, the alphabetical order would be "MOA, SU, YUI". I hope you won't change it to that.)
  5. You are the only one who sees any problem with the order and GUROMETAL specifically asked to correct and I corrected. It's correct. Let's stop discussing this now. (It was incorrect simply because I made a mistake. I'm very happy that someone noticed.)
  6. In short, we all have already expressed our opinions and it's a waste of time to repeat them over again. (If you don't invite more people to help you, everyone who cared have already expressed their opinions.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
As STATic previously said the stylizing is not neccessary due to MOS:ALLCAPS and WP:MOSTM. Following WP:MOSTM especially we can format "SU-METAL" to just "Su-metal", either way it should not include all caps. Also why is taking example from FA articles so wrong? I think you've got it mixed up, also where did you get it that it must be in official order from then? Where did you read or see that? Please share a link. Also just because you are a fan of the band doesn't mean your opinion is most valid at all, third opinions are required when consensus isn't reached, of which now there are two editors agreeing with you (yourself included) and two editors disagreeing with you so I may have to ask third opinion on one of the project pages. SilentDan (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
a. The examples for all caps in MOS:TM:
  1. TIME -- "Time (often written in all-caps as TIME)"
  2. KISS -- "Kiss (more often styled as KISS)"
  3. ASUS -- "ASUSTeK Computer Inc."
As you can see, the official capitalization is mentioned.
b. No, we can't format "Su-metal" like this following MOS:TM, there's no example like that. And even if it were, we still can't, cause different sources capitalize it differently and all Japanese-language and all official sources capitalize it as "SU-METAL".
c. Somewhere I saw a recommendation to simply use the official capitalization for a term the first time it is mentioned in the article. If you wish, I can try and find it. I would prefer to just list them in all caps in the Members section, but you seem to disagree.
d. I had already provided links to official profiles. Here, again and even more:
Links for the official order and "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance": Toy's Factory. official site, Natalie, Oricon. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean there's no example? Essentially anything in all caps is lowered into sentence caps, again as previously quoted: "The fact that the official page lists the adopted stylized names doesn't mean we should. They do it for image reasons. We're not here to promote their chosen image, but to record facts. Giving their real names is at least as valid. Giving their ---METAL names is what one would expect of a fan site, but not necessarily of an encyclopedia." - Stfg, also the vast majprity of articles will also adapt this style as this promotes them, that's part of their job. Also we agreed to remove dance and simply use vocals, why your bringing that up again I don't know, it's irrelevant. SilentDan (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Discography

It should remain consistent, so far the studio albums table differs to the singles table which differs to the music videos table, it's confusing and inconsistent. I believe it should be in the format I have previously edited in before which follows the examples in the WikiProject Discographies/style article, it's simple, consistent and easy to follow. I also believe that the mentioning of what single is indie and what is major should be on their independent articles or mentioned in the albums article since it can explain how it is an indie single or how it is a major single, I just feel it's out of place here. Also the music videos should mention who directed them, what year they came out, ordered in release (which it already is) and have a link to the official video on YouTube if possible, I don't think numbering each video is required as again it is inconsistent with the rest of the section. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The Nirvana example at "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Samples" differs from how Nirvana discography looks now. And "Nirvana discography" is a featured list, while the other example, "Prodigy discography", is not. I don't really mind minor changes like adding a column for years to the Albums table, but I don't see a point in it. I believe the tables look fine and don't go against any Wikipedia conventions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've changed the music videos table, adding years instead of single numbers. I don't know who directed the videos, so I believe there's nothing else to argue about now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, I now see what you meant by "translation". "LIVE ~LEGEND I、D、Z APOCALYPSE~" is not a translation, it's the actual title, while "Live: Legend I, D, Z Apocalypse" is a somehow clumsy attempt to make the title comply with Wikipedia guidelines for allcaps, etc. I won't add it back now, but I'm still sure the Japanese title has every right to be in the table. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The tables for singles and albums don't look the same in the examples too, so it doesn't seem that they are supposed to be more consistent than than they are now. I've made more changes, I made the Video albums table look like the Studio albums table. (Again, I want to say that I don't like linking "JPN" to either Oricon or Billboard and I may change that in the future, but now I mainly wanted to make the tables look neater and closer to what you seem to prefer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you want to delete the Notes column from the Singles section? I does look a bit confusing there, but I would want the info to be present in the table somehow... So, okay, if I agree to delete the notes, will we be done with the discography section? :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually the albums and singles tables are similar in the example, on this article however the albums table starts with the title on the left while the singles starts with the years released. I thank you for removing the fake translations and also if it is fine to remove the notes column then I will but only if it won't cause any further argument. Also there is no year column in the albums table, release information about the album is in the Album details column so we would be repeating information, if you mean to say the singles table then it's because singles can be released across several years, sometimes a year beforehand or sometimes a year after the albums final release which has happened on the debut album with singles released from 2011 to 2013. So for both the music video and singles table I believe the Year and Title columns should be switched round as well. SilentDan297 talk 01:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to add colunms for years to the Studio albums and Video albums tables instead. (Look at "Nirvana_discography", it's a featured list and it's the way it's done there.) (These were not "fake translations", but the actual titles.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree since release information has already been mentioned in the table, and also the articles: Killswitch Engage discography, Thirty Seconds to Mars discography and Rihanna discography all have the format I have been proposing and are all featured articles, they all start with the album titles then details, they do not have a separate column for the years. SilentDan297 talk 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've previewed the way it would look, and I don't like it at all. In the Singles table, the Year column will interfere with the Chart position column. It's not good, it's very confusing to have two similarly looking columns with unrelated numbers next to each other. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the way it looks and is known to look this way on many featured articles:
Extended content
Title Year Charts Album Notes
JPN
[1]
"Doki Doki Morning" (DVD single) 2011 n/a Babymetal Indie singles
"Babymetal × Kiba of Akiba" (with Kiba of Akiba) 2012 46
"Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!!" 20
"Ijime, Dame, Zettai" 2013 6 First major single
"Megitsune" 7 Second major single
  1. ^ "BABYMETAL×キバオブアキバのCDシングルランキング". Oricon Style (in Japanese). Oricon. Retrieved 2014-07-20. 
    "BABYMETALのCDシングルランキング、BABYMETALのプロフィールならオリコン芸能人事典" [BABYMETAL CD Single Rankings, Profile]. Oricon Style (in Japanese). Oricon. Archived from the original on 2013-06-11. Retrieved 2013-06-11.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |trans_title= (help)
Just because you don't like it in this format doesn't mean others won't either, this is also more consistent with the rest of the section and the year doesn't appear to be confusing at all, there are rows merged and is in it's own column clearly labelled as "Year", also there is no record chart that goes to four digits, that would be crazy, so I still believe this is the format that table should be in.
On a small note, the release date in every example I have shown you and you have shown me only shows one release date, however "Live: Legend I, D, Z Apocalypse" has two, one for the DVD and one for the Blu-Ray, that's two. In almost every discography article it will show only the earliest release date of that album, in this case it is October 19 2013 and that date should be the only date there, it makes it simple and less cluttered in the table and since the album has charted any other information regarding its release shall be mentioned on that page. SilentDan297 talk 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I see only a few problems in this section. In the chart positions of their album, Japan should not be given its own separate row heading, I have never seen any other article do that and it comes off as undue since they also have had chart success in other countries. The notes are completely not necessary and improper in the table. That information should be discussed in the article body and at the end of the day it is irrelevant what their "major singles" are, I am pretty sure that is WP:OR anyways. STATic message me! 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the heading for Japanese charts as you suggested.
I can agree to remove the Notes column, simply because tables for singles in other discographies on Wikipedia don't have a column like that.
But it's not WP:OR. search for "メジャー1stシングル" ("first major single") here on the Toy's Factory official website.
Why I wanted it to be included is because it explains why their first singles charted so low. (They charted so low because they were independently distributed, meaning that they were sold by the band itself at the band's concerts, promotional and fan events.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good! Just some extra little comment on the notes, it is nothing different than most bands/singers that begin as independent rather then start their professional career at a major label. The early singles for anyone will usually chart low, or not at all. At least you didn't straight out remove them, pretending they never existed like some users do. STATic message me! 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"At least you didn't straight out remove them, pretending they never existed like some users do." I don't understand why you are attacking me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
How is praising your editor opinion, attacking you? STATic message me! 11:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I wondered why you acted like this and now i see: User talk:STATicVapor#Edit warring on Babymetal article. You came here simply to help SilentDan297 fighting me. I must say that it's not very nice of you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While It's true I came to STATic for help during my frustration you should have also noticed that I admitted to my aggression and simply asked for a third opinion from a professional, and since he has won awards for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia I naturally felt that having his opinion on these matters would be of great use, he is not fighting you and nor am I, we are discussing with each over. I have removed the notes column on the article itself as we all agreed that it would be best to do so. Also expanding on STATic's point of Japan having is own row heading is somewhat out of place, why does Japan have two charting companies, shouldn't only one be used? Otherwise how do we include both since they are both Japanese? I've never seen this problem before. SilentDan297 talk 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Other

Any other remarks should be made here. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you should put "—" instead of "n/a" on Doki Doki Morning's chart position. Looks better this way.
GUROMETAL (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Done just that, didn't think to change that, thank you. SilentDan297 talk 11:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :D
GUROMETAL (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a sudden idea and as a means to keeping the article consistent, should Babymetal be mentioned as a group or a band? I think only one should be used in order to keep the article consistent and I also believe it should be group since that's pretty much what they are more regarded as "Babymetal is a Japanese metal vocal and dance group". SilentDan297 talk 11:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally use band, since SU-METAL said in a interview (unfortunately I can't find It, but I know It was in a interview while in Europe) that she see BABYMETAL as a 7-piece band. And they are also being known as a "Kawaii Metal band" all over the world (and, since they leave the BABYBONES behind, they're now only using the Kami-Band). So, I think is good to use band. Anyway, It's my opinion.
GUROMETAL (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, We will wait for others to share their opinion also and come up with a final consensus using that. SilentDan297 talk 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~

Will someone make the LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~ article? I think would be good to do, since It charted. Unfortunately I can't, my english isn't that good. I think someone here should try to do It v(^u^)v.
GUROMETAL (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I will make a stub now (since I'm here anyway...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yay! Awesome!
GUROMETAL (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@GUROMETAL: Not that awesome, I will just translate the stuff from the Japanese and the Portuguese articles. :)
By the way, the labels are a little bit tricky: The DVD was released on an indie label (also a sublabel of Toy's Factory, and when I wanted to learn more details about it once, I couldn't even find out the name of the sublabel). It's the same situation as with the album: the Apocalypse Edition was not just a limited release, it was technically an indie release cause it was released on an indie sublabel. But now I'm not sure how I can explain it in the article, so I won't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: wow, I don't knew about It! Where did you take the info of the labels?
GUROMETAL (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@GUROMETAL: I'm not sure. Somewhere I learned the Apocalypse Edition of the album was released on an indie label. And the catalog numbers for the releases (both the Apocalypse Edition of the album and the DVD) start with PPTF or something like this, while the normal releases with TFsomething. And the versions aren't listed on Oricon. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: Oh, It makes sense!
GUROMETAL (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@GUROMETAL: There are more editions no one knows about... [56]. As you can see, this one was also intended to be sold only at concerts. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I know about It. Have you also seen the I, D, Z? The cover feature them with "normal" outfits. Is like the famous "Ijime, Dame" Japan posters, but they posed to posters and It turn to the covers of the edition. It features "Head Bangya!! -Night of 15 mix-".
GUROMETAL (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@GUROMETAL: No, I didn't. Do you have a link? I know only about stuff like this: [57]. By the way, Discogs seem to know about some "PPTF-8017" re-release of "Babymetal × Kiba Of Akiba": [58]. It's rather confusing... --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I was mistaken. The PPTF catalog numbers aren't limited to any particular sublabel. Toy's Factory has given catalog numbers like this to limited editions on many different sublabels. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)limited editions of

Associated acts

I think you should add Kiba of Akiba (since they released a CD single together), Pierre Nakano (BABYMETAL played with him live; he's a drummer, and BABYMETAL was invited to play in him concert in December, 2012. They played "Head Bangya!!" together), Kinniku Shōjo Tai (also live performance together; they two held a live concert in the same date and place, in February 2014, and BABYMETAL joined Kinniku's concert and played a song together), ChthoniC (live performance together; BABYMETAL held a live concert in Taiwan, in February 2014, and ChthoniC joined the stage and they performed "Megitsune" together) and Lady Gaga (they'll open 5 Gaga's concerts, as you know). I think It should be shown in the infobox, [I think] It's pretty important.
GUROMETAL (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Read Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. I think only Sakura Gakuin qualifies. (Kiba of Akiba may, but I don't think it does.)
And I think I will delete Karen Girl's from the infobox now... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert

@SilentDan297: About this:

The first release by the group was a song called "Doki Doki Morning" and was included on the Sakura Gakuin 2010 message album by the girl group Sakura Gakuin in 2010 and also released the song "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" through the same girl group in 2011 and would be released as an official singer in 2013. These songs alone gained the group some popularity due to their mixture of metal music, sensational lyrics and their performance which incorporated acts such as the wall of death.

It doesn't make sense at all. Just awful. Some unrelated random information. (I'm very sorry to say 6this but I think you simply are not qualified to edit this article. Read the explanation below and think about it.)

  • was included on the Sakura Gakuin 2010 message album — All songs by Sakura Gakuin subunits are released on their albums (which are practically compilations of songs recorded/released by Sakura Gakuin during the previous year). The info is irrelevant and possibly misleading cause the song wasn't originally released on the album (it was released as a DVD single). And the title isn't formatted according to guidelines.
  • by the girl group Sakura Gakuin — The article already explained what Sakura Gakuin was and mentioning the group like that again and explaining it's a girl group like it is something new to the reader is very strange.
  • and also released the song "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" through the same girl group in 2011 and would be released as an official singer in 2013. — I have never heard of it being released in 2011. The information is false.
  • These songs alone — What songs, a song from 2011 and a song from 2013? See above.
  • due to their mixture of metal music — The fact that their style is a mixture of metal is already mentioned in the article.
  • "sensational lyrics" — What song has "sensational lyrics", "Doki Doki Morning"? Also, how exactly their lyrics are sensational? Any explanation?
  • their performance which incorporated acts such as the wall of death — What exacly performance (single), what other "acts such as the wall of death" you are referring to and when exactly they performed the wall of death for the first time? In some performance of "Doki Doki Morning"? And it's not an actual wall of death.

That said, just terrible. Basically, every single fact is incorrect or misinterpreted.

You can add something about their first song "Doki Doki Morning" having been released as a DVD single in 2010, that the music video for it was uploaded to YouTube and was noticed by metal (and not only metal) fans from all over the world / gave the band some considerable exposure all over the world. The source/sources for this sentence is/are already in the article.

Anyway, it's just sad that the article was practically highjacked by people who don't know anything about the band and make such awful mistakes. I've only briefly returned to revert the two things I reverted and because of what happens here I won't be able to look after the article in the nearest future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He used the incorrect words. Ijime, Dame, Zettai was played in live concerts since 2011, but not released. There's a video, and if I'm not wrong a text-article in Kawaii girl Japan, where SU-METAL mention It. By the way, he really edited It wrongly and It was looking really strange. And about the "sensational lyrics", maybe It's about I,D,Z, but It should be on the Ijime, Dame, Zettai article, not here.
GUROMETAL (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it indeed was premiered at a Sakura Gakuin concert in 2011. I will find a reliable source we (or he or you, cause I will probably disappear again) can use. And yes, the article on Blabbermouth says that about "I, D, Z". But it doesn't explain anything, so it can't be added like this. (And technically, the source is not reliable.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Source: [59], HISTORY. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually Blabbermouth.net is a reliable source according to WikiProject Albums, and once again you are showing signs of ownership over this article "...the article was practically highjacked by people who don't know anything about the band and make such awful mistakes." This information is referenced by a reliable source and you removed it simply because you disagree.
The reference states that this is their first release and was included on the Sakura Gakuin 2010 message album, just because you don't believe this is correct doesn't mean it should be removed since it is backed up by a reliable source, if you can find another reliable source backing up what you are saying them by all means replace what I have said, but there is hardly any evidence that the band/group did in fact start in 2010, the heading and infobox may state that but there is only information regarding activities from 2012 onward so I added this in as a means of backing up the fact that they started in 2010. SilentDan297 talk 10:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
???!!!
  1. You added something incoherent and gramatically incorrect (re-read the quote) and false to encyclopedia.
  2. I explained to you how the addition was factually incorrect. And how it highlighted unimportant facts and reiterated basic things the readers would already know. And how it was therefore useless. And how it was false.
  3. You don't seem to understand.
  4. (I am talking about what you added to Wikipedia. Re-read it, then re-read what you wrote and compare. The Blabbermouth article actually looks like a blog post rather than a proper article, though.) ---Moscow Connection (talk)
Correction: Okay, sorry, the sentence about "Doki Doki Morning" being released on an album makes sense cause it was released on the album first. But still, it's probably unimportant.
I must say that WikiProject Albums actually says "News items should not be used for BLP statements" and you used it for the History section. I think a futher research is needed to decide if what Blabbermouth says about "a buzz" is okay or not. I'm not sure if the article was intended to be precise / provide a precise chronology. I still think a better source is needed. (For example, it says something strange: "was premiered during a SAKURA GAKUIN in July 2011". Missing word? "A Sakura Gakuin concert"?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have seen several reliable Japanese articles that said that "Doki Doki Morning" got noticed on YouTube, but nothing like this about the early performances of "Ijime, Dame, Zettai". --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@SilentDan297: Anyway, let's add something about "Doki Doki Morning" and maybe even about it being originally included on a Sakura Gakuin album and about the fact that their second song, "Ijime, Dame, Zettai", was premiered in July 2011 at a Sakura Gakuin concert and that later that year "Doki Doki Morning" was released as a DVD single and the music video for it was uploaded to YouTube and "created a buzz" among heavy metal fans abroad or whatever. (The latter part is mentioned in some English-language article on Barks.) I think it would be a very useful addition and it's nice that you had the idea to add more info about the year 2011.
If I forget about the member section and the "vocals" thing, the article is not that bad and "Toy's Factory" in the infobox looks okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: So the article does in fact hold some truth to it, either way the first section one way or another needs to be expanded, there is no evidence the band/group did in fact start in 2010 and no mentioning of these releases mentioned here by the Blabbermouth article and what you have commented here. I have added an "Expand Section" template in the first section since it does appear bare and lacks such info. If you can find sources backing up their formation and their first releases then that would be great! Also I would appreciate it if you weren't so aggressive, considering you constantly keep asking people to be polite to you, you do a very poor job in respecting the edits made by others contributing to this article. SilentDan297 talk 23:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@SilentDan297: Yes, the article holds a lot of truth to it. (With some minor error I mentioned and the fact that there is no evidence for "IDZ" creating a buzz. I even already added the info to "Ijime, Dame, Zettai", but with a direct reference to Blabbermouth.net.) (But you misinterpreted what it said when yousing the source.) Sorry, I won't be so aggressive. Here are sources for 2010: [60], [61]. I think it would be better if you removed the "expand section" tag cause it looks awful. We already know what part needs expansion.
Today I've already searched for English-language sources for "Doki Doki Morning" causing some stir on YouTube, but I guess the sources I remember seeing weren't in English. I will try to find them, but I'm not sure I will succeed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Moscow Connection: I think the fact the template looks ugly is the point of it so as it stands out and any other passer-by editor can contribute and fix the problem, so until the issue is fixed it should remain there. I have searched for sources regarding their formation and releases made in this period:

  • biz-journal.jp explains that the group/band was formed in November 2010 as a spin-off project off Sakura Gakuin. Also shows how they became viral on the internet in 2014 so could also be mentioned in the present section. I used Google Translate to read this article.
  • fashionsnap.com I think says something along the lines that they became popular in both Japan and abroad after the debut release of Doki Doki Morning, however this is using Google Translate since I can't speak or read Japanese.

I wish I could have found more but I appear to be somewhat limited of time right now so make use of those sources if you think they will help. As for the biography you sourced I think we should avoid using primary sources for this and instead use secondary reliable sources like the ones I listed here, although I'm not entirely certain if they are in fact totally reliable. SilentDan (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sory but because of the edit war you started and still continuing I am not planning to expand this article in the near future. I removed the expand section tag because every Wikipedia editor who can expand it already knows what has to be done. I would very much appreciate if you don't tag the article with ugly tags again cause it just makes Wikipedia look "unprofessional". --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection:: You, I and a couple of other editors are aware of the issues in that section, any other editor or viewer does not. It is mis-informative as information is missing and It's our job to point that out to the readers and to other editors just viewing the page so as they can contribute where possible. Just because it looks ugly doesn't mean it is not correct, the information in that tag is correct and informative, do not remove it. SilentDan (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
For example, I have alresdy provided you a couple of reliable sources for the fact that the group was created in 2010. You put back a tag saying that the fact is doubtful. And I have already explained why I removed the tag. Cause there's no emergency and it looks ugly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
But no information has been placed, hence the tag, if you or some other editor was to place the information in then the tag may be removed cause then it is seen as misleading. Just because we are discussing it here now doesn't mean it's there, the information regarding this is still here on the talk page and not on the article so this tag is not misleading at all. SilentDan (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Labels

@SilentDan297:, @STATicVapor: Could you both stop edit warring and listen to the voice of reason?

I will explain:

重音部 Records (Juonbu Records)
It means something like "Heavy Metal section" Records. Do you understand? The heavy metal section of Sakura Gakuin, the one that released records as a band called Babymetal. Doesn't it look like the label was created by Toy's Factory specially for the band?

BMD Fox Records
BMD! (Think!) Babymetal Death! And Fox as in "Fox God" and "Megitsune"! It's too obvious it it's their "personal" sublabel created by Toy's Factory for them.

And you remove and remove Toy's Factory from the infobox (Toy's Factory is one of the biggest Japanese record labels).

Okay, in order to stop this, I have just replaced the labels with "Toy's Factory". But still, think about what I explained to you, and maybe revert to my original version. |Actually, my guess is that at least one of you doesn't really care about this, doesn't care whether the readers are provided correct information or not, and only wants to make the infobox look "normal".)

I really have no words for what is going on.
SilentDan297, can you understand that you have done more harm than good here and that you edit the article without a proper understanding of very basic things about the band?

--Moscow Connection (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not whether it looks normal or not, it's whether it is correct in format and in information. I think either should do really since both are technically true and the full details should be mentioned in the articles history section. I'm personally for either just "Toy's Factory" or to have both "Juonbu" and "BMD Fox" but I highly disagree with using both, either one will do but since it's officially "Juonbu" and now "BMD Fox" I would choose to have those, the mentioning that they are sub-labels of "Toy's Factory" should be mentioned in the prose of the article and not in the infobox. SilentDan297 talk 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Head Bangya!!"

(I know this is not directly related with this article, sorry) Hello guys! I think we should move the article "Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!!" to "Head Bangya!!". Since the release of the album, the YouTube title video changed to "Head Bangya!!"; in spotify the song is also called this way; and in the official band's website, in the discography section, "Head Bangya!!" is used. What do you think about It?
GUROMETAL (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Move as the article even states that it was later titled "Head Bangya!!" and official sources also call it this. SilentDan (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
What article say what? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Do not move to "Head Bangya!!". I don't like "Head Bangya!!" cause it seems to go against the way the word "headbanger" is written in English. "Headbangya!!" would be better and would be more consistent with the Japanese title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not on the basis of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If "Head Bangya!!" is the English title then it makes sense to use this since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Japanese Wikipedia. SilentDan (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SilentDan.
GUROMETAL (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Support move: To be fair, the title has gone under evolution even in official media. It was originally titled in English with the Headbangeeerrr!! title and changed to being Head Bangya!! (which is, IMO, slightly less correct of a translation but pretty much a straight transliteration of the kana, albeit with spaces added). I think as that's the official title, even if it used to be the other name and even if it's incorrect English, it should be used as it's what's used in the official translation, a bit like how All your base are belong to us isn't what's written from a correct translation but the real translation (yes, all your base is a meme, but it's the best I could come up with this late). It's possible there are a few sources (even perhaps archived forms of the official site or old news items on the site) with the original translation that could be used for a blurb about the name changing, but as the official title has changed (unless other policies like WP:COMMONNAME or something come into play), I believe so, too, should the article's. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@GUROMETAL:@Moscow Connection:@Purplewowies: I would like to urge people to move this discussion to Talk:Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! where a discussion seems to already have taken place months ago but has since been inactive and considering this move is concerning this article I think it would make more sense. SilentDan (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue here.
I have a better source for the EP: [62] -- on iTunes the EP is called "Headbangya!!", so I think it would be much better to move the article to "Headbangya!!". (The sources GUROMETAL mentioned, I mean Spotify and the (as far as I understood) "Babymetal (album)" track listing on the official site [63] are for the song. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: But since this is concerning this page it would make sense to move this discussion there for the sake of archiving so as others can view the reasons why the article changed its title on its talk page instead of having to search for it on a different article. Also now your for it again? Why have you changed your mind? SilentDan (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started a formal move request/discussion on the article's Talk page, so it would make sense to add any further comments there. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)