Talk:H (Ayumi Hamasaki EP)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hcover.png

Image:Hcover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hlimited.gif

Image:Hlimited.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hcover.png

Image:Hcover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H1cover.png

Image:H1cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H2cover.png

Image:H2cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H3cover.png

Image:H3cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus, Page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

---

H (EP) → H (single) — "H" is not an extended play. Alternate versions of the songs in "H" (the intrumentals) excluded, it is only 14 minutes long and contains only 3 songs. Due to the fact that "H" is always referred to as a single in just about every source out there, and that "H" fits the definition of a modern-day single, I believe it would be appropriate to call this release a single, which it already is referred to in this article and other related articles like Ayumi Hamasaki, Ayumi Hamasaki discography, etc.

That being said, "H" is not a song either, as it was referred to in the article name (H (song)) before it was moved to H (EP). WP:SONGS#Naming recommends that we disambiguate singles as "Song name (song)", but that can only apply to one-song singles and singles where the name of the single is the same as a title of a song in the single. Obviously this doesn't apply to "H" as there is no song titled "H" at all. Relisted. エムエックスさん 話 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)  mx3 (Sorafune) 話 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To add on to my argument: "H" is only marketed as a single. The artist's official website classifies it as a single ([1]), and the Japanese chart provider Oricon ([2]), the RIAJ ([3]), Amazon.co.jp ([4]), Amazon.com (sorry, link marked as spam on WP; search for "Ayumi Hamasaki H" on Amazon), AllMusic ([5]), HMV.co.jp ([6]), YesAsia ([7]), and many other publishers and distributors, with one exception, agree with this classification of a single, and not an EP. So assuming that "H" is indeed a single, we could not also give it the classification of EP because according to the extended play article, "An 'extended play', (or "EP" in common speech) is a musical recording which contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as a full album or LP." Since an EP is something that is specifically longer than a single, we could only classify it as a single or an EP, not both. Also to determine whether this release should be considered an EP or single, it's important to note how the songs in H are used: these songs are also included in Hamasaki's album Rainbow. Re-releasing songs from singles in studio albums is very typical, while this rarely if ever happens with songs in EPs. With only three original songs and the fact that it is a clearly overwhelming consensus among publishers, stores, and stores that "H" is a single, this release should be known as a single on Wikipedia. エムエックスさん 話 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, and I don't see this as controversial, either, so I would support speedy renaming, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think that this is correctly classed as an EP. The terms "single" and "EP" are often erroneously substituted for each other, but the fact that this particular release has more than four separate tracks, a running time far in excess of a standard single, and a unique title that is not the title of a song on the release makes this an EP in my view. In addition, I notice that iTunes lists it as an EP here. Ultimately, since (single) is not a recommended disambiguation clause as per WP:SONG, I think that using (EP) is still the best option here. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am astonished that you chose to include WP:SONGS in your argument. Did you not read my rationale at all? I believe I clearly pointed out that WP:SONGS (a project page, NOT a guideline) has to do with articles that are about a particular song. This article is about multiple songs, with no song being more focused on than another. WP:SONGS does not apply to H because H is not a song. It is a collection of three songs. That brings me to my second point. Regarding this move, we should focus on the number of original songs on this release. That means that we should not pay attention to the instrumentals, in the same way that we don't pay attention to the remixes and instrumentals in many of Ayumi's even lengthier singles like Appears, Kanariya, and Fly High. In fact, when determining what kind of a release a particular release is, some music organizations like the The Official Charts Company ignore variations of a song and only used the combined length of the original versions of the songs in a release. But we don't have to follow the guidelines of any particular independent organization when deciding things on Wikipedia. What I'd really like to know is what guideline are you using to claim that H is not a single and what evidence are you using to claim that "single" is used erroneously for this release, when in many other cases, a triple-B-side release is naturally referred to as a single. There is no definite agreement as to what is the difference between a single and an EP on Wikipedia, or the world in general. Every organization has its own interpretation, and every person has their own opinion, but if we were to follow your opinion, then we'd also have to list Appears, Kanariya, and Fly High, and many more Ayumi Hamasaki singles as long plays or full-length studio albums because they are all well over an hour long!! What I really do believe is that your definition of a single is quite screwed up. What about maxi singles? They are definitely singles. And the term "maxi single" is obviously used on Wikipedia, including some featured articles such as "Hey Ya!" (see German and UK editions). If "H" fits the definition of a maxi single, then of course it fits the definition of a single, because a maxi single is a type of single.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mx3 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you should calm down a bit. I was invited to submit my opinion to this discussion by a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. My post was not an attack on you for wanting to move this article, so please don't take it as one. I merely disagree with the proposed move. I did read your rationale and I'm well aware of what WP:SONGS says. I oppose this move precisely because H is not a song. As such, disambiguating it as (EP) is the correct thing to do, especially when (single) is not a recommended or recognised Wikipedia disambiguation. The "Appears", "Kanariya", and "Fly High" releases are entirely different because they are just regular singles with a title that reflects the lead song on each single and besides, if these articles needed disambiguating you still wouldn't use (single), you would use (song)...so they are not comparable to H at all.

The H EP is no different to numerous similar releases, such as Perfect Sound Forever (EP), Play (EP), The Rolling Stones (EP), Retro (EP), Evolution (EP), and Ah! (EP). I could go on and on listing lots of other examples of this but I'm sure you get my drift. H is no different to any of these examples...this is simply how we disambiguate these sorts of releases on Wikipedia. As such, moving this article is completely unnecessary...especially if you move it to a namespace with a disambiguation clause that isn't used on Wikipedia. This article should conform to Wikipedia naming standards and guidelines, which at the moment it does. Therefore, I oppose this move. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my above comments. I see that this article was moved from H (single) back in 2006 because it contravened Wikipedia naming conventions. In addition, the article was then moved from H (song) to H (EP) in April 2010 by Prosperosity because "There is no actual song on the single called H, making the title inaccurate." This only serves to reinforce my rational for opposing this move and proves that my objections have a precedent. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nice and dandy, but I asked you a question. Actually two questions. What guideline recommends that we not use (single) as a disambiguation? and How are we "erroneously" referring to H as a single? Because I don't see a thing wrong with it. It looks like you're just using the argument that other stuff doesn't exist. So what if there are some releases that we disambiguate as (EP), that's fine with me and I would usually agree, but that doesn't mean we HAVE to use (song) or (EP). To point out another thing, all of the examples you gave above have more songs when you ignore the instrumental versions of this one. That's not to say that 3 songs is the big red line on deciding what is a single and what is an EP, but that it shouldn't be unacceptable to be able to call H a single, especially when it was released as a single.

I know someone moved H (single) to H (song) in 2006, but who cares? How does that justify and "reinforce" your rationale? The mover thought he was doing something right because no one uses (single) and he assumed that H was a song. He also must have assumed that somewhere out there in the guidelines and manual of styles for Wikipedia the use of single as a disambiguator is discouraged because he cited "naming conventions" as a reason for the move. But what naming conventions? And yes, Prosperity was right, just about anything would be better than (song) because H isn't a song, but that doesn't mean EP is the right one. The moves really just serve to "reinforce" that some editors don't read policies and guidelines too well. エムエックスさん 話 13:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen, maybe we got off on the wrong foot here. I’m not trying to be contentious; I’m just adding my two-pence worth to this discussion and it just so happens that I oppose this move. That’s a perfectly valid stance for me to take and is not a personal slight against you. I have explained my rationale for opposing this move and I would ask you to refrain from using that sarcastic and aggressive tone and instead try to assume good faith and be civil to your fellow editors…even those you disagree with. Especially those you disagree with!

As for your question, "What guideline recommends that we not use (single) as a disambiguation?", Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Disambiguation was very clear on how music releases should be disambiguated. I have yet to see an article on Wikipedia with the disambiguation (single), and trust me, H is not that unique...there have been many, many releases just like this over the years. As for making rash statements like "I know someone moved H (single) to H (song) in 2006, but who cares?", you should care. It should be your intention to follow Wikipedia naming conventions as closely as possible and most importantly, to follow editor consensus on naming conventions. The original mover didn't just think "he was doing something right", he was doing something right. As I say, I've yet to see an article that is disambiguated as (single) anywhere on Wikipedia and there’s a reason for that. The"other stuff exists" thing is only really relevant for deletions, not naming conventions. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See my post below. エムエックスさん 話 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, the naming convention is historically based on WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation's sentences "The most common disambiguators should be created using (band), (album), (musician), (record label), (song) or (composer)." and "Others include: (EP), (concert promoter), (DJ), (manager), (record producer), (sound engineer), (songwriter), (talent scout)." WP:MUSTARD had been active until June 2010.--ACSE (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• What if there was an extreme case where we had a single like H with only two songs on it, and still with no songs having the same title as the single. Would we have to pick between (song) and (EP) then? I think in that case more people would agree to use (single). The point I'm trying to make is that we don't have to follow every single recommendation with extreme precision. Remember that Ignore all rules is an essential part of Wikipedia. In this case H is not a song nor an EP; it's a single, or as some would call it, a maxi single, so why should we force ourselves to use only (song) or (EP) as a disambiguator? エムエックスさん 話 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. as posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums: I've always thought that '(song)' as a disambigation is particularly inapt for articles about singles. If an article is about a song, fair enough, but if it's about a single (i.e. one song on each side, cover art, etc.), use '(single)'. Whether this particular case is a single or EP can only be determined by how it is/was marketed, since there are no firm criteria for separating the two. Moving the article to H (song) would be a complete nonsense as there is no song on it called 'H'.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC) In the modern age of digital media of course, a single could have more than two tracks all on the same side. I have plenty of CD singles that have 3 or 4 (or even 5) tracks and they're not EPs, they're just the CD version of a single.--Michig (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. In this case, H was indeed marketed as a single, as one could notice by looking at the singles discography page on Ayu's official website or by seeing that H is listed as a single and charted in the Oricon weekly singles chart. エムエックスさん 話 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• However, the distinction between single and album is uncertain even in Japan. For example, Hamasaki's CD "A" was regarded as a single by Oricon charts, but was regarded as an album by the Recording Industry Association of Japan·(RIAJ). Exile even claimed their CDs "Fantasy" as a "double maxi single". "Fantasy" was regarded as a single by SoundScan Japan, but was regarded as an album by Oricon charts. If we admit those works as singles, it would cause many controversies.----ACSE (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's an inherent problem with taking chart company definitions as authoritative - most that I'm aware of do not compile EP charts, only singles and albums, so an EP will tend to either be classified for chart purposes as a single or an album, even though they are typically neither. In the UK, for example, an EP lasting 12 minutes with 6 tracks on it would qualify for the album chart. I'm not aware of any chart company that formally defines what is or isn't an EP. --Michig (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• ...Which is why I was pointing out to Kouhoutek that "single" and "EP" can't be erroneously substituted for each other because there is no universally accepted definition. ASCE, for this release, the RIAJ considers it a single. Also, Fantasy by Exile has nine unique tracks, enough to debatably be called an LP. エムエックスさん 話 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that H is an "extreme case". There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of releases like this over the years...just look at the few examples I have already provided. The release doesn't need to be designated an EP on the cover or on the artist's website or anywhere else (although H has been designated as an EP by at least one online vendor as I stated earlier). H is a single release that has a unique title which is different to the title of any of the song's on it and IMO that makes it an EP, just like the other examples I provided. The fact that it charted in the singles chart is irrelevant because there isn't a separate EPs chart in the UK, the U.S. or in Japan...all EPs chart on the singles chart. As for CD singles having more than two tracks, that doesn't automatically make them EPs - they're just singles with more than two tracks, that's just the way things are these days. Just to be clear, the number of tracks on H is not the issue here, it's the fact that it has a unique title that isn't a song and therefore can't be designated (song). EP is the usual disambiguation for this type of release as far as I can see, and not (single). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I come off as rude to you. There are a lot of points I'm trying to discuss here, and in my attempt to reply to every point being made, I end up paying little attention to my tone. But to get back to the discussion, I didn't call H an extreme case. I called a hypothetical single with only two songs on it but with a title different from either track an extreme case. In such a case we would have no choice to use (single), so there does exist a place where (song) nor (EP) would be appropriate. WP:MUSTARD, even during its use as a guideline, doesn't explicitly state that we can't use (single). When a release is a song, it recommends (song), and when a release is an EP, it recommends (EP). I understand your point about charts just sorting everything into singles and albums for charting purposes, but H was released officially as a single, and the RIAJ, as well as various distributors like Amazon.co.jp, YesAsia, HMV.co.jp, 7net Shopping, among others, all appear to agree with the classification, although some of them refer to H as a maxi single. I don't really see H classified as an EP anywhere outside of the iTunes Store. Other English sources like AllMusic list it as a single as well.

I do follow consensus on many things. Without editors following consensus, Wikipedia would be a sprawling mess of anarchy. Now I realize of course that there exists a consensus on using (song) for songs, (EP) for EPs, and (album) for albums. But this release is a single. Almost all sources and distributors consider it a single, and 3 songs is a pretty ordinary number for a single. You've pointed out that H (single) was moved to H (song) then to H (EP), but for the nearly five years of this article's existence, H has been called a single in the introduction, and never an EP. エムエックスさん 話 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if the CD is regarded as a single, it does not mean the work is not an EP. For example, Nana Mizuki's 17th single's title is "Starcamp EP" (four tracks). The Hiatus' Insomnia is an EP (according to their official website) containing only three tracks, but was regarded as a single on Oricon charts. Also, Exile's single "Fantasy" was charted as "Victory" (the first track of the "double maxi single") on Billboard Japan Hot 100.

In addition, the discussions in Wikipedia such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 1#Clarify: Singles or Songs? and Talk:A-side and B-side#Double A Side have regarded the works like this as EPs.

Ultimately, there seems to be no classification called "EP" in Japan. There are only "mini-albums". If EPs are released in Japan, those works often would be regarded as singles.--ACSE (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the article Billboard Hot 100 says "Extended play (EP) releases were listed by Billboard on the Hot 100 and in pre-Hot 100 charts (Top 100) until the mid-to-late 1960s. With the growing popularity of albums, it was decided to move EPs (which typically contain four to six tracks) from the Hot 100 to the Billboard 200, where they are included to this day." Therefore, EPs were originally regarded as singles in the US and still can be regarded as singles outside the US.

I know more examples such as Glay's single "Ashes.EP", Ken Matsudaira's single "Matsuken Samba II: Ole! E.P." and M-Flo's single "The Quantum EP". Oricon Style currently categorized "Matsuken Samba II: Ole! E.P." as a "single". "Matsuken Samba II: Ole! E.P." has four tracks "Matsuken Samba II (short version)", "Matsuken Samba II (Readymade Shogun Mix 2004)", "Matsuken Mambo" and "Matsuken Samba II (short version–original karaoke)". M-Flo's single "The Quantum EP" comprises five tracks "Quantum Leap", "One Sugar Dream", "Quantum Leap (DJ Watarai Remix)", "Quantum Leap (Instrumental)" and "One Sugar Dream (Instrumental)". If the remix and instrumental tracks are removed, "The Quantum EP" has only two songs as Mx3 said "What if there was an extreme case where we had a single like H with only two songs on it, and still with no songs having the same title as the single."

9mm Parabellum Bullet also released the singles "Discommunication e.p.", "Black Market Blues e.p." and "Cold Edge e.p.". Of course, those works are regarded as singles on the ranking of Oricon Style.--ACSE (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you've managed to point out that while EPs in the US used to be considered singles, they are no longer singles, and now are grouped with albums? In any case, I don't care for Billboard charts because all they have is an albums chart, then a songs chart where every song charts separately, even if they're part of a single. But this is where it gets interesting. Apparently Billboard considers Ayumi's singles like "Boys and Girls", "Seasons", "Trauma", and "Monochrome" as albums, while it doesn't list "H" at all in the albums list. This seems to hint that by length alone, her singles can be considered albums since they are mostly over an hour long each, but that "H" is not even an EP. Just another major music-related organization that doesn't consider H an EP. I think I should also point out right now that Amazon.com doesn't list "H" as an EP either, although the American website often labels releases as EPs.

Now what have we done with "The Quantum EP"? We put it in the singles section of M-Flo. And with good reason too. Amazon.co.jp and most other distributors seem to think it's a single, and while I haven't found "The Quantum EP" in M-Flo's discography on their official website for some reason, it still looks like M-Flow just considers "EP" a nice decoration for release titles because they listed "The Tripod E.P.", which has three original songs, as a single. Similarly, Glay considers "Ashes.EP" their "37th single".

If I managed Oricon, I wouldn't hesitate to consider the "EPs" you mentioned by 9mm Parabellum Bullet as singles. Why? Because all they really have is one song, titled the same as the release, and another really long live concert track. エムエックスさん 話 15:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Billboard Hot 100#Double-sided singles. Billboard currently doesn't admit double A-side singles. If the title of an EP is its track's title, the EP would be referred as a single. For example, Exile's song "Victory" reached #1 on Japan Hot 100 (see List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Japan)) when the double maxi single "Fantasy" was released.

And, you don't understand what I wanted to say, though I apologize for saying "If we admit those works as singles, it would cause many controversies." In this case, "The Quantum EP" is a single. Therefore, the single "H" can be regarded as an EP in some cases.--ACSE (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but where is "The Quantum EP" actually classified as an EP? M-flo's official website, Oricon, Amazon, YesAsia, and CDJapan are a few of the many publishers/distributors that classify it as a single, but I can't find anywhere that it's classified as an EP. I get the point you're trying to make of course, but you said earlier that there aren't really EPs in Japan, only mini-albums. Those are pretty much the same thing. They're both longer than a single, and shorter than an LP. While Memorial Address is called an EP on the English Wikipedia, it's called a mini-album on the Japanese one. If "The Quantum EP" was really an EP, in Japan it would be called a mini-album, correct? But it's not classified as an EP nor a mini-album anywhere as far as I know.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you last therefore argument there. To me, it sounds the same as saying that someone grew a lemon and called it a lime, therefore we can call all lemons limes on Wikipedia, even though no one else called that first lemon a lime. Ah, haha, sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm too tired to think of a better way to explain how that argument doesn't make any sense at the moment. Oh, you mean the single "H"... still doesn't make any sense. How does "The Quantum EP" being a single allow "H" to be a single and an EP? This probably goes along with my other argument that "The Quantum EP" isn't an EP. エムエックスさん 話 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you confuse mini-albums with EPs. The term "mini-album" does not have the same meaning of "EP". The "mini-album" is the shorter version of an album. The "maxi-single" is the longer version of a single. And, the "EP" can be referred to as both "mini-album" and "maxi-single" as the situation demands.--ACSE (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"A maxi single or maxi-single (sometimes abbreviated to MCD) is a music single release with more than the usual two tracks of an a-side song and a b-side song." – the maxi single article. "An 'extended play', (or "EP" in common speech) is a musical recording which contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as a full album or LP." – the extended play article. According to Wikipedia, a maxi single is a single, and an EP is longer than a single. エムエックスさん 話 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting embroiled in another lengthy discussion on this matter, The Beatles' Long Tall Sally EP, which is one of the most famous EPs ever, is much shorter than the The Time's "Jerk Out" maxi-single. So, I don't think that you can just go by the length of a release to determine whether it's a maxi-single or an EP. Indeed, in my experience maxi-singles are usually longer than EPs, but that's for another discussion. To me, a maxi-single is just a single release with a bumper lot of tracks on it, but it will still have the title track as the lead song, just like a regular single does. Whereas EPs will often (although not always) have a unique title that isn't a track on the release, like H does. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the point I was trying to make. If I thought there was a specific length that determines whether something is a single or EP, I would have stated that length. I meant that because of its very definition, an EP cannot be a single. If a release is considered an EP by a person and a single by another person, then one of them is wrong. Long Tall Sally (EP) is an EP because it was released as an EP, and I don't see anywhere that it was referred to also as a single. Jerk Out#Maxi-single is a maxi single because it was released as a maxi single, and similarly, I don't ever see it being called an EP. Now if I'm not mistaken, the two main arguments I see as to why H should stay at H (EP) are that H has too many original songs, and that H overall (like including the instrumentals) is too long. Well if H has to be an EP because it has too many original songs, then we'd have to call singles like "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"/"With a Little Help from My Friends"/"A Day in the Life" by The Beatles well, something else, along with all the other singles out there with 3+ tracks. And if H has to be an EP because it's too long, then we'd also have to call the longer release of Jerk Out an EP, as well as many other maxi singles out there. エムエックスさん 話 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it has too many original songs. I'm saying that it's an EP because a) it has a unique title, rather than simply being named after the lead track "Independent" and b) it has four or more tracks on it. The combination of both of those things together make it an EP in my opinion. If this release had simply been called "Independent", then the article would be located at Independant (song) or somesuch and it wouldn't be an issue. This release has a special title—a title given to the entire piece of art and not just the lead track—and that is something that only happens in popular music with albums and EPs. Since this release clearly isn't an album or even a mini-album, I feel that EP is the best disambiguation term to use. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is something that usually only happens to albums and EPs. Do you have a source that says that special titles are only ever given to albums and EPs and there are no exceptions whatsoever, or is that your opinion? Because I still think H is a single with the rare fact that it has a title not akin with any of its tracks. And as far as I know, Ayumi Hamasaki, her label, Oricon, the RIAJ, and all of those other sources I listed above all agree with me. If Hamasaki wanted to give this release a unique name because she wanted it to be an EP and not a single, she or her label would have called it an EP. エムエックスさん 話 00:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the naming conventions and Kohoutek1138. 夢追人^YumeChaser 01:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've said this before and I'm going to say this again. What naming conventions? I've read Wikipedia:Article titles, and there's nothing that discourages (single) as a disambiguator. I've read WP:SONGS, but that's for articles about songs. I've looked at WP:MUSTARD, but aside from it no longer being used, it doesn't discourage using (single) at all. エムエックスさん 話 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I don't have a specal source for this...lordy, it's not a legally binding rule or anything, but I think you'll be hard pushed to find an example of a release that's not an album or EP with a unique title that's not associated with any of the tracks on it. Regardless of all that, I've stated my reasons for disagreeing with this proposed move and don't intend to go over them again. This article should be disambiguated either as (song), which would be silly, or as (EP). I honestly don't believe that this release is unique or special enough to be the first article on Wikipedia to be designated as (single). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Critical sources

Here are a couple of sources for professional criticism of the songs, [8] [9] (just the mini review, not the guide comment) [10] (the comments next to the songs). --Prosperosity (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:H (EP)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prosperosity (talk · contribs) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The digital release dates are inaccurate, as the iTunes Store was only made available in the US on April 28, 2003! They're all pointing to the historical CD release date. These should be removed and replaced with sources that accurately reflect the digital release dates.
• The charts section doesn't have any citations. Both these and the sales need to have citations or else they should be removed.
• "It eventually debuted at number one on the Weekly Singles Chart with more than 400,000 sales, which eventually became her biggest sales that year.[51]" information not in source.
• WP:CAPS for "HANABI", "CREA" (unless its an acronym), and titles featuring articles/prepositions/conjunctions ("Feel The Love" --> "Feel the Love"). Several professions in the credits sections are overcapitalised as well ("Design" --> "design")
• In the critical reception section you reference "a reviewer from Yahoo! Music", even though this is a review from their 各社レビュー section (the reviewer is Tetsuo Hiraga of Hot Express)
• H is not a song title, so it should be consistently stylised as H, not "H".
• The article needs to be spell-checked again, I think! At a cursory glance I've seen "as an limited edition" and "at the Japan Gold Disc Awards in 2003, "H"...where awarded Songs of the Year."
• There are tildes in the article, even though WP:MJ style guides ask for these to become colons for album/film/concert titles (Ayumi Hamasaki 15th Anniversary Tour: Best Live Tour) and brackets for songs ("Hanabi (Episode II)")
• In the reviews I notice someone's wordpress blog was used. This goes against WP:SPS and can't be used as a veritable source, unless the author is an otherwise published music reviewer.
• For the CDJournal review, you quote some of the text written in the ガイドコメント section, but this is actually just information supplied by record labels and not a review. The review part of that page is the text written in the ミニ・レビュー box.
• Some of the references are badly formatted, such as <ref name="info">Liner notes of ''Rainbow'' by Ayumi Hamasaki. Dec 2002.</ref>. These should use the citation templates such as cite web and cite AV media notes. A lot of sources are missing titles; these should be added in the "| script-title=ja:" field and a translation of each given.

Hi there, thank you for reviewing the H article for the good article nomination. I am currently looking through the review since it was put on hold for seven days and will get to work on fixing the article. However, I noted three bullet points that you had reviewed and I am a bit more curious about them;

1. "There are tildes in the article, even though WP:MJ style guides ask for these to become colons for album/film/concert titles (Ayumi Hamasaki 15th Anniversary Tour: Best Live Tour) and brackets for songs ("Hanabi (Episode II)")"

Sorry to say but I cannot understand this phrase. Are you suggesting me to use the (~) tildes or to use the colons in the songs/albums/concert films that are provided?

Here's the exact bit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Subtitles. A couple of years back it was argued that ~'s don't make up standard titles in English, so they should be discouraged for titles here.

1. "For the CDJournal review, you quote some of the text written in the ガイドコメント section, but this is actually just information supplied by record labels and not a review. The review part of that page is the text written in the ミニ・レビュー box."

Sorry for my Japanese, it's pretty bad! But I searched up the translation and now I understand it so I will remove sections that are unnecessary. However, when it comes to the track list in the site, am I able to mention the parts of where CDJournal have individually commented on the song or is that part of the information by the record label?

The individual song comments and the ミニ・レビュー sections are both fine!

1. "In the critical reception section you reference "a reviewer from Yahoo! Music", even though this is a review from their 各社レビュー section (the reviewer is Tetsuo Hiraga of Hot Express)"

If this is provided by the company (各社レビュー), would I comment "Tetsuo Hiraga from Hot Express" instead of "a reviewer from Yahoo! Music"?

Yup! Yahoo! just archived the review. Hiraga was a writer for Hot Express, not Yahoo!

Thank you for your time GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have more time in the next few days, so I'll make a more thorough review soonish, if that's okay! --Prosperosity (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Secondary comments

• WP:CAPS means we should remove most instances of stylised caps! So "Hanabi" and Crea.
• Check some of the language again. "Likened" means to compare something, I think you mean favoured. There also shouldn't be any contractions like "didn't", since an encyclopedia is a formal piece of writing. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from an outsider

• The usage of off vs. of should be corrected. Example: Lyrically, the song talks about the theme and importance of.
• Some of the information given are unsourced, like the thing about the remixes and instrumentals. Ryoga (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update

Hi Prosperosity. I have reviewed over the remarks that you have left on the GA nomination page regarding the H EP, and I can honestly say that I have done as much as instructed through the posts you have said.

• Inaccurate release dates - These have been removed and only modified with the physical releases.
• Chart citations - I have removed the daily and monthly chart as their is not significant proof of its chart history.
• WP:CAPS - Sorry for the misconception, I thought it meant I had to add caps to the required titles. This has been adjusted with titles including "Crea" and "Hanabi". Also, the changing of "Feel the Love" has also been changed.
• [H] titling - Has been corrected.
• Critical reception - The conflicting of Tetsuo Hiraga from Hot Express and Yahoo! Music has been altered and put in the archive template and normal URL template in the references. Also, the CDJournal comment has been removed.
• Tidles - All tiding has been removed.
• Wordpress blog - The word press has been removed.
• Reference templates - All reference formats in the article have been put in an {{cite web and {{cite AV media template.
• Unsourced information - All unsourced information has been removed.

• Spell check - I have tried my best in checking through the article for spelling errors and have currently found none, but I could be wrong.
• Language - Some of the words that you pointed out has been replaced. Have checked through article.
• Use of of vs. off - With personal struggles of the difference, I have replaced the words with different words/sentences an phrases. I have, however, used the word off in a more appropriate manner.

I hope this helps with the review. Thank you. FaliforniaDreamsFan (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't quite done all the references! I'll make a list of all of the ones that haven't been done yet so you can quickly find them.

• "A Song for XX". Beatfreak (in Japanese) 132. January 1999.

ref name="SinChew"

Recording Industry Association of Japan | Related Data (this one doesn't point to the information directly either)

Traveling - Hikaru Utada. Oricon.co.jp.

I also did a quick grammar review of the article for you, looking at some minor issues. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• - Done. HOWEVER! The source regarding Recording Industry Association of Japan | Related Data may have been an error regarding the riaj publication. According to the 2003 archive, they have registered "Free & Easy", "Voyage" and "A" as Song of the Year, but A was not released in 2003, so they may gave muddled the song title with H instead. I have added that in the article though if that is alright? GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 07:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just use this one! It has H listed. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the GA check-list, and the only issue left is 'Hcover.png'. It needs to be re-uploaded smaller (around 280px, maybe as a .jpg), as 500 is way too big! Plus it should have a caption in the box stating which version it is (e.g. Standard edition cover), since the article goes into detail saying that there are five covers. --Prosperosity (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• - 'Done. The [File:Hcover.png] HAS been re-uploaded with a 260px pixel but the infobox still enlargens the file once you click on it. Again, I HAVE re-uploaded the filer.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job! --Prosperosity (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on H (EP). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222013719/http://avexnet.jp/item/hamas/disc/product/AVCD-30364.html to http://avexnet.jp/item/hamas/disc/product/AVCD-30364.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120210120/http://www.avexnet.or.jp/songnation/index.htm to http://www.avexnet.or.jp/songnation/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H (EP). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205030935/http://avexnet.jp/item/hamas/disc/product/AVCD-30380.html to http://avexnet.jp/item/hamas/disc/product/AVCD-30380.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)