Jump to content

Talk:Babymetal (album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musicians and authors

I'm pretty sure this list is incorrect. Because yuyoyuppe himself and his managment announced on facebook that he produced/arranged "Megitsune", "U.ki.U.ki★Midnight" and "Akumu no Rondo". As a long time fan of him, I immideatly heard his specific sound, especially the heavy use of synths in his arrangements. He is also a DJ and producer of elektronic music - the dubstep part in U.ki.U.ki★Midnight is similar to his dubstep remixes and the intro to the EP of his band "My Eggplant Died Yesterday". --Neogenic (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A few problems with the article...

There is an alarmingly large number of problems with the current version of the Babymetal (album) article as maintained by @Moscow Connection: These problems include the unencyclopedic writing style of the article, the wickedly confusing and off-putting layout of the "Track listing" section, the many coding errors of the article and the incorrect layout of the article.

To begin with, the article is mostly written in a way that promotes the album rather than actually talking about the album. As described by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, a listed content policy, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The obvious repetition of what tracks the album has and how many editions there are in the "Track listing" section supports the argument that this article is written too much like an advertisement. Examples such as Unapologetic, Mylo Xyloto and Supermodel (album), three of many on the encyclopedia, talk about what the album is about, rather than what it contains, which, however, is what a good amount of this article contains. Sentences like "The CD includes five of Babymetal's singles that were released in 2011 - 2013, from "Doki Doki Morning" (digital single) to "Megitsune", their B-sides and three new songs." should be dropped in favor of more encyclopedic material such as "The album follows the group's five singles" or "The album contains tracks from the group's previous five singles"; short and non-biased.

The second, and probably the biggest problem, is the profoundly confusing and, dare I say, structureless way the "Track listing" section of the article has been written and coded. God on Earth where do I begin? I mean, I'm serious. there is no structure here. It is a complete mess that no editor is letting me clean up. In addition to the way separate versions of the album have actually been given their own subheadings for some profound reason, this pile, which takes up a whopping 1/3 of the entire article, has not been in any way shortened. It has been stretched to it's absolute maximum, with a single DVD being stretched into three different sections, complete with absolutely no collapsed templates and redundant noting such as "CD - Same track listing as Regular Edition", which can be easily be described under a "Packaging" section. The lead sentence, "The album is composed of ten songs from their previously released singles..." is also completely redundant since the massive tracklisting box literally right below this sentence will tell you that exact same information, if it had not already been said at the top of the article or in a "Packaging" sub heading. Another thing is how the liner notes have been listed in this track lsting. Why in the world is it split into "Lyrics", "Music" and "Arrangement" instead of the more plausible "Writers" and "Producers"? Not only does this actually break the template itself in a way that prevents a headline being placed onto the template, but it just doesn't make sense! What is "Arrangement" supposed to mean anyway? Are these the Producers, or do you mean "Arrangement" in a literal sense that these are the people who organized the musicians to perform on the record? Because that almost never appears on the liner notes. They do not contribute to the creation of the audio itself in any way, and should be relocated to the "Personnel" section of the article. Also, it is my understanding that the Limited edition of Babymetal is a single DVD, am I not correct? Why does the track listing treat it as if there are three DVDs?

One big question, in relation to the track listing, that I must ask the editors of this article, one that has already been asked by the guy above, where is your source for the list of writers and producers? There is no source to be seen on the article whatsoever, and I could not find a source online that supports the list of personnel as written in the track listing of the article. Not on Discogs, not on iTunes, not even on existing scans of the CD booklet itself that have been posted online!

Next up are the errors in this article, both factual and in coding. One factual error: Why are Babymetal credited for dance? It is my understanding that Babymetal is an album; an audio recording. How is dance interpreted in an audio recording? That's physically, scientifically and simply just impossible. You don't listen to someone dance, yet the group are credited for doing so in an audio recording. Some coding errors: three red links appear in this article. One of which attempts to link to an article about "Doki Doki Morning", which does not exist. That should be obviously be removed, no question about it. The other two red links appear in the Reviews box. I had successful been able to fix this by turning the very weird template used in the box to a simple link to an article about the subject on the Japanese Wikipedia. However, along with all the substantial revisions to the article, it was reverted. In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, why? One other coding error is, once again, in the "Track listing" section of the article. Most of the songs have links to other articles. However, for some of these links, the articles they link to have nothing to do with the song at all! "Megitsune" understandingly links to the single of the same name, "Megitsune". However, "Onedari Daisakusen", for example, does not link to any article about "Onedari Daisakusen", but rather links to "Megitsune", to which no commentary whatsoever on "Onedari Daisakusen" exists other than it appears on the "Megitsune" single. Again, why? Isn't this misleading? Tracks with links should link to an article about them, or otherwise they should be left linkless when no such article about the track exists.

Last, but not least, is the layout in which the article is designed. The first few sins are the infobox in it's near entirety. First off is the addition of (JP) at the end of the release date. We don't do that because 1) the world doesn't revolve around a single country, even if the album was made by a Japanese artist, the date should always be the date the album made it's first release, whether in Japan or not, and 2) it's just not ethical, design-wise. Second is the massive amount of breaks used in the infobox. As with the "Track listing" section, the editors of this page are obviously trying to stretch the infobox to it's absolute maximum for some delusional reason. What's wrong with the comma and space? Why do we really need to make the infobox as large as possible? Where's the length of the album? The album has been released, and the track lengths are there in the "Track listing" section, why has nobody counted up the minutes and sections and why was my counting reverted? Here comes what probably is the most BS thing about this article: What in the holy hell is Template:External music video doing here? What on Earth? Even on the Template's documentation itself, it strictly states that the template should only be used as a optional miscellaneous entry onto Template:Infobox single! What is it doing here?!?! Why? I am absolutely astonished that someone thought this was a good idea! The Limited edition artwork? It shouldn't be there either. There are policies behind copyrighted images on Wikipedia, and because Copyright is such a sacred thing on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, the policy should be respected. The second cover should be removed because it simply isn't notable enough on it's own to be included in the article, and can cause certain issues with editors who are into copyright and stuff like that. The two very last sins of this article, finally, is the misplacement of the "Reception" section and the removal of the Contains Japanese text template. The template should be there. Some people don't have browsers that support the HTML that allows Japanese text to appear, and this is a good notification of such. However, it has to be questioned what "Reception" is doing all the way down there. Why is beneath the track listing and personnel? In almost every album article you see on the English Wikipedia today places Reception above the album specs. No excuses here. this is, in the best sense of the word, a mistake.

Have the editors of this article ever seen an article on the English Wikipedia before? From what it seems, the editors of this article are most likely following the Japanese Wikipedia for their writing. unfortunately, this is the English Wikipedia. Whatever rules and practices that are preached on the Japanese Wikipedia may not be the same on the English Wikipedia. this article, however, nearly everything is different form the English Wikipedia. I'm only doing what any other regular contributor on the English Wikipedia would do: fixing accordingly. However, being reverted twice now, I feel justified in this monumental feat of writing that I have accomplished today.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much text, I will write my reply slowly over the following days. What I can see now:
  1. I'm not maintaining this article, but yes, I'm defeating it against you. :)
  2. Where are the coding errors exactly? There were surely many errors in your version, though.
  3. The sentence The CD includes five of Babymetal's singles that were released in 2011 - 2013, from "Doki Doki Morning" (digital single) to "Megitsune", their B-sides and three new songs. is useful cause it simply explaines which singes the album contains in prose. It's just a short sentence. (I'm not the one who wrote the sentence.)
    Btw I'm surprised you are talking about it cause your version contained all the same information + much more redundant stuff, looking like a collection of sentences from the articles about singles.
  4. There was a music video released for the album, so it's linked just the same as any song article contains a link to the music video for the song. (Yes, in Japan they often release a music video for an album track to promote the album. It's just the same as releasing a music video to promote a song. In Japan, physical sales are still big.)
  5. At the moment the second cover is not discussed in the article. But why not wait if someone adds some description? You simply removed the cover without explaining anything. By the way, the limited edition's cover is usually prettier than the regular one, so if we have to choose, it's preferable to choose the limited one for the infobox. I think the limited edition usually sells more, too. (I wasn't the one who added the covers.)
  6. The other two red links appear in the Reviews box. I had successful been able to fix this by turning the very weird template used in the box to a simple link to an article about the subject on the Japanese Wikipedia. — The template being used is a common template used on many articles.
    (Yes, I'm the one who formatted the reviews and I think it's okay cause it makes it clear that the articles being linked are on the Japanese Wikipedia. This surely saves some people from finding themselves on the Japanese Wikipedia which they can't read anyway.)
    You, on the contrary, destroyed all the links, linked unexisting articles.
  7. The layout of the track listing can certainly be improved, but you simply made it incomprehensible. The article now carefully lists the tracks exactly as on the original disks. The DVD tracks are divided into subsections, you can't list them differently simply because you don't like it.
  8. I think if we list the members, we should list their positions in the group exactly as they are officially called.
    If someone is credited as "screams, dance", she should be credited as "scream, dance" on Wikipedia. (By the way, there are also music videos on the CD+DVD version, and they dance in the music videos.)
    I actually have the CD+DVD version and I will look at how the members are credited.
  9. The "Release history" section you added is unreliably sourced. Are you sure that the album wasn't physically released anywhere except Japan?
  • #8 demonstrates that maybe you don't know much about the band. #7 may demonstrate that you don't have the CD and obtained everything you know from the iTunes track listing. I appreciate you didn't repeat your edits. :)
  • Yes, someone should write a proper article here. But what you did only made it worse.
Sorry, I wrote this very fast and I probably will be correcting typos several days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the CD inlay and it says "BABYMETAL are: SU-METAL - Vocal, Dance", etc. No other "instruments" except "Vocal", "Scream", "Dance" are credited. (And it credits KOBAMETAL as "Total Producer" or something like that.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I was the one to add the prose above the tracklisting, as well as migrate the "arrangement" (which was in the personnel section) to the tracklisting. It WAS in the liner notes (I could photograph such a thing for definitive proof but will not). The prose above the section was largely to keep the information in the article that I removed when I replaced the column that had previously been there (a wordy "origins" column) with the arrangers. I must admit I'm not terribly good at writing summary-type prose from scratch, so that probably could be improved upon. I've been wanting to do some cleanup and prose-ification of most of the article, myself, but have been unable to due to business and finals creeping up, which have kept me to smaller, "bite-size" tasks. I'm also the one who added the limited edition artwork, and at the time, after looking up the relevant information, I, in good faith, believed it passed the relevant criteria to be of use to the article as it was significantly different from the standard cover and widely distributed. (I also believe there may be some commentary on the art itself (as in I remember seeing some), which makes it even more useful, and if I get time, I will look for the sources in question and attempt to build a section out of it.) However, if the image is, by consensus or policy, removed or even outright nominated for deletion, I'll be happy to endorse it myself, as I admit I might be wrong on the criteria (I rarely upload/work in images here, so it's not particularly my forte). I'm glad you went into a bit of detail here, as your edit summary was non-explanatory ("it shouldn't be here because it shouldn't be here" is a bit like "because I can" or something). I also must say I agree with many of your suggestions and criticisms.
In short: some not-quite-right stuff may be my fault, but when I get the time, I want to devote a chunk of it to genuinely improving the article and will take concerns here into account if they're still problems. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Purplewowies: You should add commentary about the artwork as soon as possible. There are people who search for extra covers to delete them. If it is not discussed in the article, it will stand little chance in a deletion discussion. (There are some extra covers on Wikipedia, but from my experience Wikipedia editors treat covers of Japanese albums [by bands they have never heard about before] differently.) (But there will still be some chance.)
By the way, if it happens, I will prefer to leave the cover of the limited edition in and delete the regular one cause the limited one is better. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I will if I can, but it may not be today. Outside of the commentary, it's also of note that I've seen several places use the image to discuss the album, even if they likely only had access to the regular edition to actually discuss or review. I don't necessarily agree that removal should apply to the regular edition image--even if limited edition is more visually appealing, the regular, standard edition is, well, standard. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rerelease

The band will rerelease the album in 26 July. Here you have more info. See you!
GUROMETAL (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I shoved it through Google Translate and see that it's talking about the album with the date you mentioned, but the translation is rather incoherent (I see somewhat coherent sentences about release and celebrating overseas tour, something about stickers and images, "Angkor" (0_o)). Can you (or anyone else who understands Japanese) explain what it says? It appears to be talking about the limited edition version, but what kind of rerelease? Japan-only? (I don't remember seeing the LE originally sold outside Japanese markets.) Worldwide? At the remaining (i.e. North American) shows on their tour? Like what exactly does the article say? - Purplewowies (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It was not exactly explained the release area or something else. When I get more info, I tell to you guys ;)
GUROMETAL (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Babymetal "Gimme Chocolate!!" in Infobox

@Moscow Connection: I understand that due to the song "Gimme Chocolate!!" not being notable enough to have its own article that its music video should be mentioned here but why in the infobox? In that part of the Infobox it makes it out like the article is in fact dedicated to the one song and video which it is not, instead I think this should be moved to the article prose where it can talk about its release in more detail. SilentDan (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I understand your position, but is it that important? I've changed rhe caption to "Music video from the album". I think it's not confusing at all... (If the article were good, I would understand the desire to make it look more "common", but now... Write a better article and then we'll think about it. :) Like, we'll think about moving the link to the bottom of the page, creating a small table for it or something...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

I will later change the "Track listing" section. I really hate the way it "lumps together" all the editions. It's impossible to understand which edition contains what. And, for example, it repeats "Summer Sonic 2013" in brackets several times instead of saying clearly that the DVD includes their entire performance at the Summer Sonic 2013 festival. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I placed Summer Sonic that way because the DVD treats them as different chapters/titles. I was trying to find a way to make a subheader in the listing for those, but I'm not sure it's possible. How would you like the editions to be separated? I can look into doing that, if you'd like. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interpuncts in tracklisting?

I hope this isn't a weird question, but what exactly precipitated the change in the tracklist to use interpuncts/bullets to separate writers/composers? I'd think the commas that were in place before would be better aligned with style guidelines. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well? Does anyone know? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
*tries to see if posting one more time will get any page watchers to look or reply and—if not—resolves to let this plunge to the depths* - Purplewowies (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea and haven't even noticed before now. Do what you like with it.
By the way, I've just noticed yesterday that people are now using the {{flatlist}} template in infoboxes (when listing writers and producers). Probably they like using bullet points as separators instead of commas. And I think it looks okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Babymetal (album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babymetal_(album)/Archive_1&oldid=761275658"