|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Well clearly the page lacked formality and it looked more like a timeline of his life. I tried to make it formal as much as possible. Is it okay to take the tag off now? And the discussions should be about the article itself, not the celebrity. mirageinred 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great, it's a lot better; however, certain sections could still use a lot of work. I will remove the tag on the whole article and tag those sections appropriately. --C S (Talk) 10:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- alright mirageinred 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you tell me specifically which sections need work? mirageinred 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have done a better job of tagging; I've added some more specific tags which should help clear things up. I believe the section "Rise to fame" is the most problematic, but other parts have some problems (not as serious IMHO).
- One general thing that can be fixed is to do better sourcing, e.g. all these statistics such as "viewership was such-and-such percentage". But my main issue with "rise to fame" is the tabloid style and unencyclopedic tone. "Of course, his fans were shocked and angered". That's just one example, but if you look, I'm sure you will see several others. I call this kind of thing "tabloid" because it's the kind of gossip one might read in a supermarket tabloid. The reason I don't just remove this, however, is that there may be something to be kept here. Perhaps there was some public outcry, something that could be suitably referenced and included, e.g. articles in fanzines, commentaries on TV, etc. But otherwise, it just appears to me to be unverifiable opinion. Also, the tone is too conversational. The article as a whole suffered greatly from that, and now it's much better, thanks to you, but that section still has a problem with the tone at a few places. --C S (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what's with this article. The structure of the "Rise to fame" section just makes it so hard to fix it for some reason. mirageinred 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work; it has improved the page tremendously. There are still spots where citations are really needed and I've tagged some of those. But generally, sourcing (and removal of unsubstantiated remarks) has been good enough that I don't think there really is a need to put a source tag on the entire article. So I removed it. The tone issue has been minimized also. --C S (Talk) 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You would think that those two pages would be identical, but they are not. The first one is about the TV series and Beautiful life is a page about an Australian singer's album. Which one should be moved under a different name? mirageinred 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, it's improper style to have the second word uncapitalized, so whoever created that page should have used "Beautiful Life". So it seems here that we have two things with the same title; in that case the proper thing to do is create a disambiguation page for "Beautiful Life" and then the TV series should be "Beautiful Life (TV series)" and the album should be "Beautiful Life (album)". The only reason one article would still stay under "Beautiful Life" is if it was undeniably the primary topic for that phrase, which I wouldn't say is true here. --C S (Talk) 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see. I couldn't make a disambiguation page, but I renamed both pages. mirageinred 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much mirageinred 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I couldn't find it anywhere on the internet... mirageinred 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Move requested for primary topic disambig
Fair use rationale for Image:Kimuratakuya.jpg
Image:Kimuratakuya.jpg 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.
New photo+lead paragraph+"TV series & TV movies" section
I've set up a sandbox for the changes --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raaraa99/sandbox Changes made includes: new photo, more info in the lead paragraph, newly structured and updated "TV series & TV movies" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaraa99 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)