Template talk:Vocaloid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.


I think there's alot of things not needed within this navigation template. There are some links not "directly" related to the Vocaloid software such as MikuMikuDance (which even is noticeably not cited properly). Story of Evil, Hatsune Mix and some more can actually only be considered sub-categories as they fall under "japanese vocaloid fandom" which is only semi-related to Vocaloid itself. Someone aside from the creator of this template, please look on the matter. JCD (Talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Miku Miku Dance, sadly though its a commonly used program for Vocaloid users, there are few sources right now. But it is a freeware program used for the promotion of Vocaloid songs and is support by Vocaloid manufactorers. Sources for that will come in time, but right now their limited. And as for it being only falling into the Japanese fandom, and being semi-related, I'm afriad Vocaloid is a VERY Japanese influenced software, and all additional stuff related to Vocaloid is going to be related like that. I'd appricate help, but not from someone who has to request yet another wikipedian with the knowledge to achieve the task. I know wikipedia has standards to follow, but looking up subject matter first is often a lot handier when speaking about something later. (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


No one has yet provided a source for the name of two of the Vocaloids voice providers on the main source, while their obivous on one part for Gachapoid's, we need the source on the other. All others have considerable sourced through all other links on vocaloid main page. (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing the software?[edit]

Theres no need to list all the individual Vocaloids, as there is only 1 with an actual page at the moment and thats Miku. The other's must have pages made for them for them to qualify, otherwise the templates looks incomplete. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we add UTAU?[edit]

I wonder if it would be relevant if we added UTAU under the "Related articles" row. Granted, it's not Vocaloid, but the two tropes are related. It's due to the success of Vocaloid that UTAU became more popular, isn't it? I'm just not sure, and I wanted to ask for any opinions before it is changed. FaeriMagic (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion... But... I'm answering this in case it comes up again.
No, while UTAU is worth mentioning on the vocal synths template, its not worth mentioning here. Reason being is the link between it and Vocaloid is only minor... There is only 1 Vocaloid with a UTAU vocal Macne Nana. There is more notability to add Voiceroid since we have two Vocaloids who have Voiceroid vocals, but that should not be noted either. And unlike UTAU, Voiceroid is a professional licensed software while UTAU is a simple shareware-sorta software.
Its hard to really say, but if not for Crypton there would be no links to UTAU at all for the most part. Yamaha does not acknowledge it, so only Crypton is paying attention to it at all. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Too many items that don't link to articles[edit]

90% of the items in the navbox don't link to an article on the English Wikipedia. This isn't so bad for the items with foreign-language entries, but there are entire rows where neither the company(?) nor any of the listed items appear to have articles in any Wikipedia. As per WP:EXISTING, navboxes should only include entries with existing Wikipedia articles; as such, this navbox needs to be significantly edited to remove the unlinked items. --V2Blast (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed czar 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Clusternote, the company groups that have no notable entries should be removed—the infobox is for connecting existing, related articles, etc. czar 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Multiple-aspects nature of topics
Version / Product Leon Hatsune Miku Megpoid VY1
Vocaloid 1 Vocaloid 1
Vocaloid 2 Vocaloid 2
#Hatsune Miku
Vocaloid 2
Vocaloid 2
iVocaloid iVocaloid
Vocaloid 3 Vocaloid 3
#Hatsune Miku V3
Vocaloid 3
#V3 Megpoid
Vocaloid 3
VocaloWitter VocaloWitter
Vocaloid 4 Vocaloid 4
#Hatsune Miku V4x
Vocaloid 4
#Megpoid V4
Vocaloid 4
Mobile Vocaloid Editor Mobile Vocaloid Editor#Products Mobile Vocaloid Editor#Products
Compact notation
for template
Leon(1) Hatsune Miku(2/3/4x) Megpoid(2/3/4/M) VY1(2/i/3/W/4/M)
  • @Czar: I'm sorry that I had missed your comment before reverting your edit. On English Wikipedia, there are many articles about Vocaloids; over seventy articles are already exist under Category:Vocaloid including sub-categories. Each article tends to be bloated blindly by the tireless writers, and even worse, each bloated article is often divided by arbitrary criteria such as Vocaloid engine versions (i.e. V1, V2, iVocaloid, V3, VocaloWitter, V4, Mobile Vocaloid Editor). As a result, a series of topics about the individual products (i.e. Leon, Hatsune Miku, Megpoid, VY1, etc) are often diffused on multiple articles, without appropriate navigations for grasping outline at a glance, and both readers and writers are often confused where is right place for specific topic.
 The main issue is the inconvenience of article-navigation caused by ignoring the multiple-aspects nature of topics, especially the product-centric viewpoint. In my opinion, on this template, this issue can be alleviated by re-organizing and aggregating the links to the already existing descriptions for each vocaloid product described on each articles. (For example, please see "Compact notation for template" on above table). --Clusternote (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The compact notation can be made even easier—we usually don't link to the specific sections of articles, especially when the article itself is linked right text to it. Anyone looking for Hatsune Miku v2, 3, etc. will know that it's within the main article. If the articles are separate, it's likely worth a hard look to see whether they are candidates for merge. Otherwise, I think the condensed notation is the right direction—much better than leaving non-links in the navbox. czar 06:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your sincere response, and sorry for my late response. The main article set have been split for one year ago or so, and it might not be quickly reconstructed again for a few years due to the lack of resource. At this point, any other alternative plan seems not proposed, thus I will reflect above alternative links in the later. --Clusternote (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Added! --Clusternote (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving a note, the template needs work and I am creating pages for the Vocaloids - but this is all, it will take some time though as I have to adapt information. I sadly have to sit back and wait a day or two between adding pages so its taking a while, to check their going through. See discussion below, I've removed some items and I this will not interfere with your work. I tend to find a lot of the wikipedia pages get ignored and rarely edited. The templates stuff should have been up and running long ago but whomever was going to do it hasn't. So its the only reason I'm doing it now.

In addition, when things are updated its very selective... Like you'll find people doing what we at the Vocaloid wikia called "the Big 8" vocals (basically its Miku, Len, Rin Luka, Gackpo, Gumi, Kaito, Meiko) but rarely the others. So this means when updates ARE done its selective and only on a handful of the 60+ characters - and some of these don't currently warrant pages at all here. :-/

I don't know how to adjust the format of the sources to match proper wikipedia looking references... I don't know if anyone can go over and fix them? I'm trying my best and didn't know this discussion was occurring. Its a shame that these problems exists in the first place. But I thought I'd highlight things that I've noted over time... Even in the days of there just being Vocaloid and no addition pages (which changed in 2010), these problems still existed, so its a long-term thing. :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

removed some vocals - moved others[edit]

I moved vocaloids whose main releases were via the Yamaha store and weren't major Vocaloid releases to the "Yamaha/Bplats" section. Most are using Yamaha only as a distributor and count as "Yamaha" vocals (by their own terms). With the exception of Maya (as Exit Tunes is a major company like Sony - they just only made 1 vocal).

I'm working on pages for every vocaloid release. However, I will not make pages for unreleased or cancelled vocals. They do not warrant wikipedia pages in my opinion, nor real mention at all. Akikoroid-chan is retired Ueki-loid never amounted to anything, hide (who wasn't even listed!) was only featured as a one-off. The cancelled vocaloids are in a state of limbo and are difficult to know what the future holds. Lui, for example, never became a Vocaloid at all, while Ring has only a limited trial. These vocals are best left only mentioned on pages to do with the engine. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I will not interfere with the discussion above - this is only to resolve some quick-adaptions with the current version. I do not wish to tread in anyone's path here, hence why I'm mentioning this to avoid conflict. In short, the adjustments have no relation to that discussion at all and are only to make life easier here and now. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Empty pages[edit]

So as I feared with leaving the number of redlinks, someone has gone and filled them in without adding any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. My solution would be proactively merging these to the list of Vocaloids unless someone has a better idea. To be clear, I'm talking about all of the recent articles that cite one or less secondary source to justify a dedicated article. If an article has to be written from primary sources, it does not have significant coverage and is best covered in a list. czar 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)