Talk:Cute (Japanese group)

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

Requested move 3[edit]

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The result of the proposal was Withdrawn by nominator. The only comments advise to deal with the matter differently. Moscowconnection (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute (Japanese band) → Cute (band) – The target has a history as an article about Malta's Junior Eurovision 2007 entry, but has been redirected since 2008. All articles except Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007 and Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest link to the target through templates. Since the target makes it more difficult to find the Japanese band, I think that Cute (Japanese band) should usurp the title. Moscowconnection (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you can move the current Cute (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Cute (Maltese band), to solve any potential edit history problems. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about doing it (cause I didn't want to make the article about the Maltese group deleted), but I found meta:Help:Moving a page#Moving redirect pages that advised against doing it. If it's okay to move the current Cute (band), I will, and I will change the JESC articles to point to the new location. How do I remove the "requested move template" then? Moscowconnection (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't move the redirect, then the edit history will be deleted when this article overwrites that location. If there are no edit history problems, then this won't be problematic, if there is shared attribution between articles, then this could cause problems, which is why I mention it. The meta page does not address that point, it merely indicates problems of moving a redirect page with edit history in isolation, not in combination with another totally different page taking its previous name. If you move the other page to "Cute (Maltese band)", then correct inbound links for the Maltese version to "Cute (Maltese band)", that should solve the incoming links problem of identifying with the wrong article. If we need a hatnote as well (for this article at its future name), it should point to Cute (disambiguation), where an entry for "Cute (Maltese band)" would then be added. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-discussion[edit]

If there are two bands with this name, even if the Maltese one is particularly not notable, then we should still denote this one as the Japanese band.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common logic really. You had already established the article was related to a band which participated in Junior Eurovision, so the Eurovision project should also have been notified about the delete nomination so that they could participate in the discussion. This delete seems to have been underminded and gone through very quickly without anyone from Eurovision project knowing about it, or being invted to discuss it. Wesley☀Mouse 12:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cute (band) has already been deleted, so to will the redirect that was with it; although I think an admin can undelete if such a request is properly made to WP:UNDELETE. Did you by any chance read the guidance at articles for deletion before you submitted the nomination? Information there would have told you the correct procedure to have taken, and who to notify of the nomination. Wesley☀Mouse 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not deleted. It was simply moved to Cute (Maltese band). And the original page move request (that I withdrew) couldn't have been performed quickly, it would take a week to discuss here. Moscowconnection (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain it. Cute (band) was moved to Cute (Maltese band). When a page is moved, a redirect to its new title is created automatically in its old place. So, as a result of the move, there were 2 pages:
  1. Cute (Maltese band). (It's the old Cute (band) at its new location, it's unharmed, it has not been deleted.)
  2. A newly created redirect from Cute (band) to Cute (Maltese band). I requested the newly created redirect (a completely new page, created yesterday) to be deleted. It was deleted by an admin. That's all. Moscowconnection (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute (Maltese band) is redirecting to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007. But I'll look into the page history, and see if the article was a small stub, which would explain the redirect. If the articles needs expanding, then again I'll work on that and restore things to its previous version (removing the redirect) and expand accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do that? There is already a disambiguation page at Cute (disambiguation) which covers everything. No need to create another disambiguation page for Cute (band), as it is a waste of time and article space. Wesley☀Mouse 14:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no attacks made against you at WT:ESC. I am discussing things with you on there in a civil manner, and highlighting any evidence that I find. In that discussion you said you never "deleted" anything. However I pointed out in response to your question, about the message Ryulong posted above, in which they asked you "why did you delete it?" You further went on to say that you nominated for G6 to make space for an uncontroversial page move. Are you now denying that you posted those comments above? Wesley☀Mouse 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting me again. Read my last answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Some articles being deleted via WP:AFD without WP:ESC being informed. Reread everything again. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why this discussion is continuing to be honest. It may be time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The issue has now been resolved, the article Cute (Maltese band) has had the redirect removed, and the article expanded with more notability details. The discussion at WT:ESC was to make members of the project aware that some articles are being deleted without the project being informed/invited to discuss them (and believe me this one isn't the first). If I didn't take action to inform the project about these types of issues, then how would they be aware to monitor things? You keep telling me to reread things as to imply I'm illiterate - that in itself is a serious accusations about personal behaviour that lacks evidence - and is considered to be more of a personal attack than the allegations you made about me attacking you. Any comments that I have posted to you have included evidence, which is not considered to be attacking in any nature. Perhaps you would like to read WP:NPA for further information on what is and isn't classified as a personal attack. Wesley☀Mouse 16:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Some articles being deleted via WP:AFD without WP:ESC being informed accuses me of nominating the Maltese band for AFD and speedy deletion. Although the article could have been deleted as a result of my actions, neither of two is true. It's understandable that I want to defend myself. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asking you to read my explanations once again was not a personal attack. You misquoted and misinterpreted me. I asked you to read this discussion once again to understand everything correctly. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is misquoting and misinterpreting, no offence but I think it may be yourself. The thread at WT:ESC is a general informative thread, and all been done under the assumption of good faith. Other editors on the project would be able to determine themselves based on the evidence that I put forward. And please, I ask you once again, to cease telling me to "reread" things as though to judge my literacy skills. I am a native speaker of British English, and fully read and understood all comments that have been posted in the various areas connecting to this. I suggest that you drop this issue now, as everything has been resolved. Wesley☀Mouse 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it would be a waste of time now to re-request a move. You created Cute (band) as a disambiguation page, which has now been redirected to Cute (disambiguation). Requesting a move now is going to be very technical as well as complicated. Don't fix what isn't broken. Wesley☀Mouse 19:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, having the Japanese band to be relisted as "Cute (band)" and the Maltese one as "Cute (Maltese band)" is a lot more confusing to readers searching, then how it currently stands. Wesley☀Mouse 19:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is if anyone actually wants to find the Maltese band. It might well have been a one-time band to sing one song at JESC. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Not now then. I promise I'll notify you if I decide to request the move. But I'll give it a month at least. I think I'll do it but not now. I don't think it will be complicated. I'll just request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There will be a discussion on this talk page. But not now, I will completely forget about it for a month. I need to do something more creative than moving cute pages back and forth. :) Moscowconnection (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that there are now two bands with the same name. Ryulong pointed out above, that as there are two bands sharing the same name, then we need to differentiate them using their country of origin in the article title; such as Cute (Maltese band) and Cute (Japanese band). There are naming convention guidelines that also need to be adhered to in circumstances like this, and perhaps reading them would be a wise thing to do at this stage. You state that the Maltese band are a one-time only band, but I must disagree with you on that one. The band are still active and have released material in their homeland, Malta. Its just that at the moment, the article hasn't been expanded fully to reflect these facts, and as I pointed out to you once before, there is no rush in when that article has to be fully expanded. And if we where to go along the lines of technicality, then this article itself should really be listed a C-ute, as the band's official title has a hyphen in it. Wesley☀Mouse 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I won't do it now anyway. Let's discuss it when there's a move request. There is no problem with the title. It's pronounced as "Cute", so it should be listed as "Cute" and not as "Cee-Ute". The katakana "キュート" after the band's name, that Ryulong adds back so persistently, is the word "cute" written in Japanese script. I'll read the naming guidelines. I need to make the best out of everything and write a proper article here. It's obvious that no one wants to read it in its present state anyway. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of new move request[edit]

Since you reminded me about the matter (see #Official_website), I decided not to wait with the move request. This is the notification I promised you. I will not be notifying you about the request again. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Now you've just completely confused me there; not one bit of that made any sense. Wesley☀Mouse 20:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to request this article to be moved to Cute (band). I notified you that I decided to make the request. That's all. I don't know when I will do it. If you are opposed to the move, I recommend you adding the page to your watchlist. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I think the request will turn more complexed than you are anticipating. Cute (band) is now redirecting to Cute (disambiguation). So if you request a page move of Cute (Japanese band) to Cute (band), then that would end up with the disambig page getting caught up in the transfer too, and would end up opening a whole different can of worms, and probable upset a community on a wider scale. My mother always told me, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it.". So why move an article to a new name, when the current name covers exactly what it says on the label - the band is Cute and they are from Japan - Cute (Japanese band) covers it all. Wesley☀Mouse 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cute (Japanese band)" is okay for Wikisearch, but not for everything else. I don't think it will be complicated cause there is a primary topic. I don't understand why you are against the move. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having a constructive opinion is now "being against the move"? I never knew expressing an opinion was a violation of Wikipedia policies? Have you checked out WP:WHATISTOBEDONE? The first line is very apt to this move idea at the minute. "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia". Going of that example, a reader visiting Cute (Japanese band) would expect to find an article about a Japanese band called cute. Whereas Cute (band) is too open for what to expect. And if I'm to be brutally honest, this article has had more move requests than Santa Claus has delivered presents in his lifetime. Name one thing that Cute (Japanese band) wouldn't achieve that Cute (band) would? The naming of articles is primarily about Wikisearching purposes, and making such a search easy for readers. Your move proposal is going in the opposite direction of what the search function was designed for. Wesley☀Mouse 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this guideline on article names for bands, albums and song; which is literally stating the same opinion that I have said, and you're disagreeing with.
"In band names and titles of songs or albums, capitalize words that are not coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), prepositions shorter than five letters (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Note that short verbs (Is, Are, and Do) and pronouns (Me, It, and His) are capitalized. Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn).
When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Anthrax (American band) or Off the Wall (album)). Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums of the same name exist (such as Down to Earth), they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, but Off the Wall (Michael Jackson album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist releases multiple albums with the same name. When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".
So as the guidelines state, in cases where two bands with the same name, but from different countries occur, then the way to list them is X (American band), X (Australian band) (or in this case Cute (Japanese band), Cute (Maltese band)). Wesley☀Mouse 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, it does look like you are right. I'll read the naming conventions more thoroughly in the next days. Until then, I won't rush, as you already suggested. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the manual of style examples used in the guidance, the two X bands are legitimate articles.
Going off how that manual of style, then we should also be adhering to the same methods by having...
If we're to maintain consistency with Wikipedia's manual of style on similar cases, then shouldn't we do the same with this case? Wesley☀Mouse 00:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. I can't discuss it until I review the rules. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is way too long already, but I was asked to comment. As there are two bands with with similar names that both have articles on Wikipedia, they need distinct names. There is no reason to give one band essentially higher billing than the other. Therefore the two articles should stay at Cute (Maltese band) and Cute (Japanese band). LadyofShalott 17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that this has turned into a whopper of a discussion. Partially my fault there, as I try to write comments briefly, but then end up going around the houses in my words just to get to the point that I actually meant. Thank you for casting an opinion on this though. woohoo I did a short comment, I need to reward myself for that - Wesley☀Mouse 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LadyofShalott. I think it sounds very logical. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

My request to rename the French Wikipedia article to "Cute" has been accepted per fr:Wikipédia:Conventions typographiques. This is for future reference. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on French wikipedia, and English wikipedia, are separate matters. The renaming approval at French-Wiki won't be accepted as a "future reference" reason for trying to approve a renaming request on English-Wikipedia. Wesley☀Mouse 12:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official website[edit]

(Moved from User talk:Moscowconnection#Cute (Japanese band))

Hi Moscowconnection,

I've had a gander over at the article - looking impressive now. However, I thought I should point out on the infobox (right-hand side of article), where it says Website should really have the band's official website page, and not the URL of their YouTube channel. This could do with being fixed, to keep in accordance with manual of style for infobox parameters. BOT's are prone to do random checks and may end up removing that link if it doesn't recognise it as the official page.

Also, it may be worth taking a break from the article too. The page history only shows you as being the single-editor on the article,which to the community can be seen as someone taking ownership of articles; so please be cautious there; as this would be violating one of the five pillars. Wesley☀Mouse 18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post on the corresponding talk page for matters like this.
  1. Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor ownership discusses an absolutely different matter. It discusses ownership conflicts.
  2. (By the way) I am simply not the single editor of the article, so the article history can not possibly show it.
  3. The link to YouTube is there because the YouTube channel was created for international audience while the official site is in Japanese only. But I will replace it now. Thank you for pointing it out. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be getting mixed-up with the concept of ownership and conflict. A conflict can be a number of things, and as the second paragraph of Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor ownership states, ownership refers to a user who is the primary contributor (which also answers your second point) to the article. Majority of the edits so far have been solely of your own. The conflict occurs when one editors noticed this primary contributor situation. The ownership policy is in place to encourage such primary contributors to take a break once in a while, and not be seen as being the only person expanding an article. And it was that part that I was trying to stress out to yourself. I can clearly see you are passionate about the article, but not everyone is like-minded as myself, and may see things in a different way. Sorry if my good intentions of protecting yourself are not met in an appreciative manner. Wesley☀Mouse 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor ownership discusses ownership conflicts. There is no conflict. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read my reply here: #Requested move 3. I can't engage in long discussions now, sorry. You distracted me. :) I have several immediate tasks. Both here and in real life. If you want to help this particular article, just be bold. You could have removed the link to YouTube yourself. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moscowconnection, I know what I said may have come across as gobbledygook (it even looks like that to myself now I've read it for a second time); but when they say ownership conflict they mean it becomes a conflict when someone notices one editor making primary contributors on an article. By primary contributions, that means the only editor doing the Lion's share of work on an article. This could be off-putting to other editors who come along and wish to help. I'm not saying from my perspective, but just think if a different editor looked at the edit history and the editor's name that shows most is the same person - that new contributor could feel like they would be stepping on toes and interfering. In all honesty, I don't mind if someone is passionate about an article to the extent they only want to work on that article. But others may not be as openly acceptive to that idea as I am. I've come across people who are strict with policies, and wouldn't think twice about reporting others - I'd hate for you to fall victim of those types of people. As for the bold edit, I would have done it myself, but there where that many external links, I couldn't work out which was the official website, and I'm not fluent in Japanese either to have read the text to determine a decision. Wesley☀Mouse 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor ownership discusses reverting other users' contributions, and nothing else. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Members[edit]

Let us not add colors, blood types, birth dates and other utter trivia to any article. Ever. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not trivia. Each girl has her official member colour. The info is sourced, and it is essential. As for blood types, I removed the reference because it didn't look good in the table, but here it is: [1]. As you can see, the profile of the band has only birthdates and blood types. So it must be important. And actually, it is important in the Japanese pop culture. And it's a Japanese culture article. Their birthdates define their seniority in the band, define the order the members are listed in. Moscowconnection (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colours, kinda, have the same importance as "vocals", "guitar", "drums" in a list of rock band members. I can't really insist that much on leaving blood types, but as I said it's very importand in the Japanese pop culture. If you look at the Japanese Wikipedia, Idol and Model infoboxes have blood types. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed the list of music videos. I'll find some more info and add them back if you don't mind. I don't see what harm it does, and it does make the article better. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but, ahem, that's nonsense. Such marketing/styling qualifications are not encyclopedic. I don't buy any of this. Removing the bloodtype because it doesn't look good? No, you should remove it because it is utterly trivial, and that reference is not a reference. Please read WP:RS. That birthdates should prove seniority is OR, and even if it is true, it should fit in the text. We don't to pecking orders in lists of members--that Geezer Butler didn't have a very high status in his band should be in the text if it is relevant, not signaled by something else. What the Japanese Wikipedia says is of no consequence. As for the list of videos, no: that's really quite trivial. Singles is one thing, but videos is another. I get the suspicion from looking at Everyday Zekkōchō!! that you're building something that approaches a Wikipedia:Walled garden. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Moscowconnection; Drmies is an administrator, so he would have more knowledge as to what can and cannot be included in an encyclopaedic article. Blood types of a person would be prohibited as it is highly personal data, and don't forget we are dealing with living people here. If we add too much sensitive data on a person on a site such as this which is in public view; then we would be in serious breach of Data Protection Acts - breaching Data Protection Acts are an offence and in some countries can incur judicial proceedings, so we need to be cautious. There are some details about a person that cannot be published without the consent of the person it belongs to. If the blood types are available on a website, we have no proof that those details are even correct - not without checking medical records. So in that respect blood type shouldn't be included. Plus as Drmies said, it does look like WP:TRIVIA. I know you mention that Japanese Wikipedia include blood types; but that Wiki and English Wiki operate differently. Japanese culture may permit it - and thus be allowable on Japanese Wiki. But US and British laws don't allow such data, and thus English Wikipedia cannot included it.
  • Thanks Wesley--but it's not really my admin status here--it's maybe that I have a few years experience making more than a few edits, and not just on articles that I care for... I don't want to play the admin here since I've made a ton of edits now to those articles, but I have no doubt that the various noticeboards and guidelines would agree with my edits--WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:TRIVIA, WP:ELNO, etc. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Birth dates, would only be included on an article for a single person. As this article is about a band, then dates of birth for each member would be irrelevant to the article, and again be classified as trivial. Wesley☀Mouse 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link above. How can blood types can be highly personal data if they are listed in the band's official profile? Moscowconnection (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have found the answer to that one Moscowconnection. Check out WP:DATA, that only specifies certain details, and doesn't stipulate blood types. However, looking at Blood types in Japanese culture, it refers to blood type being used in their culture in a similar way the Western world uses astrology. Also it states that the female Japanese population use blood types as a way of gauging relationship compatibility. Seeing as Wikipedia isn't a dating agency, then its inclusion of such data would be irrelevant. We're an encyclopaedia after all, and not Cute's advertising site for their potential matchmaking. Wesley☀Mouse 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen astrological signs listed in K-Pop articles, an area of Wikipedia as littered with fan pages as, apparently, J-pop. I wouldn't mind dating any of those Cute girls, but I couldn't keep up with them in the dancing department. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing too much. Up-Front Agency and Hello! Project links are both official. One is from the recording label and other is from the band. You left the better one, though, so it's okay. I will think about what videos whould stay later. Probably, the solo close-up versions are too much. I don't understand why you removing all of them. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to your message on my talk page) The music videos don't start with an advertisement. It's YouTube who adds the advertisements. You will have all to remove all YouTube videos soon in this case. There's nothing in the rules about this. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One official link is enough. Read WP:ELNO. I'm removing these videos because they are turning all these articles into fan pages. Listing a blood type is completely ridiculous, and the band's website isn't a reliable source on that sort of nonsense anyway. Maybe you can find the sizes of their breasts somewhere and try to add that to the articles? Or their favorite pet? Drmies (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies; may I ask your opinion on article naming procedures too? According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), if there are two or more article sharing the same band name, but from different countries, how should they be listed? Because looking at the guidance, it gives the example as:

If that is the correct procedure, then as Wikipedia has two articles for a band called "Cute" would we need to list them as:

Only reason I ask is because there is a suggestion to have this article moved to Cute (band), and leave Cute (Maltese band) as it is. Surely that would be more confusing than how the examples state it should be. Wesley☀Mouse 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not entirely sure, Wesley--what you outline seems proper to me, but I'm no expert in naming conventions. Perhaps user:LadyofShalott will know; she knows most things. But I also like to go by common sense, and your outline seems commonsensical to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestion about asking LadyofShalott. I like the "breast" comment bythway; that has got me in a fit of laughter back here, and believe me, I needed that well earned laughing fit after the last couple of days. Oh, and I sent Meowy an apology - now we wait to see if he accept is; but I don't want to be anywhere near another Georgian article again lol. Wesley☀Mouse 16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos[edit]

(Moved from User talk:Moscowconnection#Cute (Japanese band))

  • I'm removing all those videos from all those infoboxes. We are not a directory of links, and the plethora of them only serve to strengthen the idea that these pages are like fan sites. Sorry, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to exhaustively list, let alone link, everything. I watched one of those videos (and need to wash my eyes now) on the official cutechannel, and they start with a fifteen-second add--so they promote the band as well as the companies that advertise on the band's YouTube channel. That is simply unacceptable. BTW, one of those articles had 31 YouTube videos linked--I'm pretty sure that's a record. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't start with the ad. It's YouTube who ads the advertisements. You will have all the videos from YouTube to remove all YouTube videos soon. And you should install an ad bloscker. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. You are linking to ads. And please don't tell me what to install: I am a regular, unsophisticated PC user, like probably most Wikipedia readers. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a recommendation. Sorry, if it sounded differently. I'm replying on the Cute talk page about the rest. I have it in my watchlist. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apply common sense. First of all, music videos are by definition promotional. Second, not all videos on YouTube have ads. Third, 31? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! Check out WP:YOUTUBE. Apparently there is a limitation to Youtube links, and also strict guidelines too, as there are copyright issues to be wary of also, and if my memory serves me correctly, users can be banned for repeated copyvios. Wesley☀Mouse 16:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules for that. Until there are Wikipedia rules that prohibit linking to officlal music videos on YouTube, the videos should be there. My common sense doesn't tell me to remove the links. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? There's no rule? So when WP:YOUTUBE states "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.", then we're to ignore it and not bother checking what these "restrictions" are? And you stated the videos are from Cute's official YouTube channel. I'm 110% certain that all official YouTube channels of any music artist/band are protected by Copyright laws. Do you know how serious copyright policies are on Wikipedia? Even I wouldn't dream of breaching CopyVio on here, when I'm not sure if material is copyvio or not, I seek advice first, and then include it, if I'm told its fine. Wesley☀Mouse 16:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it mention anything about standard YouTube advertisements? Moscowconnection (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow, take the advertising side out of the equation here for a second please. With or without adverts in them, the videos are official music videos belonging to the group, which are from their official youtube channel. They are protected by Copyright laws, and should not be used as an external link or reflink on here. WP:ELNEVER states the videos would violate copyright, and WP:ELNO states they cannot be included - regardless of whether they contain adverts in them or not. Wesley☀Mouse 16:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting the rules again. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm misinterpreting what again? I hate to say this, but you're very wrong there Moscow. Are you aware of the seriousness of breaking copyright laws? I've looked on the youtube channel, and their videos do have copyright on them, so they cannot be reproduced, or distributed without the band's consent. By placing their links on here, you are distributing the copyright material, and infringing laws - and criminal laws at that. Do you really want to spend time in prison for breaking copyright? I sure as hell wouldn't. Wesley☀Mouse 16:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to YouTube is not "distributing". 16:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Moscowconnection (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously give up with you, really I do. Drmies has pointed out several policies that state those links cannot be included; I have read them too. YouTube's copyright policies also provides guidelines on definitions of copyright laws. Storing a link in an external manner, like you had done with Cute's music library, looks very likely to be breaching copyright laws. But like I said, if you want to get arrested for breaking that law, then carry-on posting the links. Because, if it was me in your shoes, I would serious do a lot of homework checks on copyright laws, before posting anything that is "creative works" on any website, including Wikipedia. Wesley☀Mouse 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, YouTube has an agreement with social network site to "share" material; sharing isn't distributing. And in sharing the YouTube links, a person is abiding to copyright laws, and can be instructed to remove the links from their social network profiles upon demand of the video owner. Posting a "link" to a YouTube page on Wikipedia isn't sharing, but distributing; and therefore becomes copyright. Google up Copyright laws, if you don't believe me, or beter still, read YouTube's Copyright rules. And while you're at it, read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:COPYVIO. Wesley☀Mouse 16:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I don't know that WP:YOUTUBE applies in the copyright sense; I believe the copyright bit there is for things that are already copyright violations by their being on Youtube. (That is, it's the video being on Youtube that's the copyright infringement, vs. the link here.) Since it appears to be the band's official Youtube channel, it's probably not a copyvio in that sense. I derive this interpretation from point 1 of WP:ELNEVER; it seems to be talking about linking to things that are already copyvios, not committing copyvios by linking to things.

That said, having Youtube links in the manner that Drmies is objecting to (which I think is represented in this diff) is clearly inappropriate. For one, they're not in an external links section; for another, I can't make them fit any of the criteria in either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. They should definitely be removed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes more sense then; thank you Writ Keeper for assisting on this matter, very much appreciated. From what you're saying, sounds along the lines of what I thought, although I may have portrayed that across a little OTT on here, especially with the Copyright thing. I may have acquired Copyrightophobia, and end up running around like a headless chicken when I see copyright stuff plastered about. Wesley☀Mouse 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies also removed all links to official music videos and additional cover art from the articles about Cute singles and albums. Like this. I think it's his personal point of view and there's nothing in the rules about that. Yes, I'm intentionally showing the article with 31 links but Drmies did the same thing where there were only 3 videos. All videos and all additional cover art were removed. Everything. I haven't found one left yet. I think it's wrong. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides rules there are conventions. Additional cover art for two-sentence articles, that's overkill. Those special editions are made for the fans, and the plethora of video links, external links, and additional cover art, that's turning a short article into a fan site. Never mind that a whole bunch of them have at the best tenuous sourcing. I picked a random one--4_Akogare_My_Star has one single reliable source. Almost all of them have a link to natalie.mu, which does not strike me as a reliable source per WP:RS. It's just too much--too much like a fan site. WP:ELNO has guidelines, and WP:NOTFANSITE could do with an update. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Natalie.mu is not a fan site. It's a very big Japanese entertainment news portal, maybe the biggest after Oricon. MSN and Excite and everyone else reprint Natalie's articles, but I did it as it is done on the Japanese Wikipedia - linked the original. By the way, I've thought about translating the Japanese Wikipedia article about Natalie.mu (here it is: ja:ナタリー (ニュースサイト). I must do it in the next days, then. Moscowconnection (talk)
  • Natalie.mu is a self-published blog site, and shouldn't be used as a WP:RS anyway per WP:BLOGS. The fact that Natalie.me is a blog site owned by Natasha Inc, clarifies this. Wesley☀Mouse 18:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a blog site. Did you read the article? Moscowconnection (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Google Translate. It will work in this particular case. The Japanese Wikipedia article is short, but it doesn't represent the popularity and hugeness of the site. And as I said, I can relink all Natasha.mu articles to MSN, Excite and Yahoo Japan. All of them. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes I did read it, and I also paid attention to the links at the very bottom of the page, especially the ones for "about us" and "management". The management link take you to a holding company for natalie.mu - oh and strangely the holding company is called "Natasha Inc" who specialise in blog sites. And you still say its not a blog? And I seriously hope you are not thinking of using Google translation service to translate the Japanese wiki article into English, and then create the English version on here - geeeeeze that is one hell of a no-no by Wiki-standards - and even I know that one. Wesley☀Mouse 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith here, with the number of youtube links that there was in this removal by Drmies, then it could have been an accident that the additional cover art got removed too - it is an easy thing to do when there is sooo much material links being removed. Did you ask Drmies if he was aware he removed additional album art by mistake? Wesley☀Mouse 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that diff, Drmies leaves a single link to the music video on Youtube in the external links section, in accordance with WP:ELYES #2. The other links he removed because they were either: extraneous links to Youtube, given the one already in the external links section, not related to this song in particular, or without encyclopedic value. Those are all very much within the external links policy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK so after reading EL and the other guides. What I seem to have figured out (and correct me if I'm wrong), each of Cute's articles can have a direct link to their official YouTube under "External Links", but to individually link every single music video too, is going overboard? Wesley☀Mouse 17:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving left to show a better example. :) I didn't notice the YouTube link in my example, I left the link by mistake in the external video section. In all the other Cute articles, I'm sure I transferred put all YouTube links tointo "external video" templates in the infobox. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better example. Two consecutive edits by Drmies. All the music videos were removed. And an additional cover. In this example, not even one link to official single profiles are left (Drmies did leave one link to the band's official site on other pages.) I know the articles are bad, these are stubs. But it's wrong still. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Stub" doesn't necessarily mean "bad", in my opinion. But in my opinion even a link to the "official" page for the single in an article on the single is too much, especially if the article lacks reliable sources in the first place. It's a matter of editorial judgment: every time the EL section is fatter than the References section, there's something not right. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not unreliable sources. I regret not having written an article about Natalie.mu. (Here's the link to the Japanese Wikipedia article about Natalie.mu again: ja:ナタリー (ニュースサイト)). I'll do it. And as I said, I can find all the same artilces on MSN and Excite and Yahoo Japan. They are reprinted, But, hopefully, it won't be needed when there's an English article about Natalie.mu. In this case, this was a misundestanding, sorry. I won't argue, I will just write the article and you'll see. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So those Wikipedia policies that have been around for God knows how long, and have also been courteously provided to you by Drmies, Writ Keeper, and myself for you to view. Those guide are all wrong? The users following those guides, are wrong to abide to them? I'm starting to wonder if there is a training requirement needed here. And I don't mean that in a bad way, but it is looking like some guidelines are either being over-read and confusing, or just not even bothering to abide to them, despite the advice from a non-involved editor such as Writ Keeper, who came here from the third opinion board. Wesley☀Mouse 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Linking to videos on the band's official YouTube Channel is not violating anyone's copyright. That's not the problem. The problem is we do not individually link every single song video. That's just ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a fansite, and we have a rule called WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. A single link to the official YouTube Channel is, in my opinion, ok. That should be the absolute maximum however. I just deleted a whole plethora of YouTube links from another band article for the same reason. LadyofShalott 18:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But an article about a single should have links to music videos for the song. Creating a huge table on Cute (Japanese band) was probably too much (although, it was very convenient, and I thought about readers' convenience here). But article on particular releases should have links to music videos. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moscowconnection, there are now 3 experienced editors here who are all saying the same thing, then there's me just rambling on. Their individual levels of expertise on here is by far greater than yours and mine combined. If this was my debut venture in this discussion, then I'd definitely take on board what they are saying. By the way, above you mentioned about translating a Japanese article into English. Before you do go ahead with that, perhaps you should check out Wikipedia:Translation first. Wesley☀Mouse 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Just fyi, Wesley, I created my account a month and a half after you did. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Oh gosh (goes a little red-faced with embarrassment). I still ask questions to people on things I'm not 100% certain on. I'd rather check first, before rushing and getting myself into a pile of dog doo-doo. I'm starting to get palpartations though at Moscowconnections idea of using Google Translation to translate a Japanese article into English, and then using that translation to create a new article on Wiki. Even I know that one is so much of a no-no, that it would be like chopping your own head off on a guillotine. Wesley☀Mouse 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misinterprete me, please. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your "google translate" comment came shortly after you mentioned translating the Japanese article and also after I mentioned about Wikipedia:Translation in such cases as cross-wiki article translating; then I can't see how I have misinterpreted. If I have misinterpreted, then please, be so kind as to explain exactly what you meant with "use google translation to translate the Japanese Wikipedia". Wesley☀Mouse 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted Wikipedia rules again. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia rules are pretty clear on this one: "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." (emphasis original) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I told Wesley Mouse to read the article using Google Translate. I didn't tell him to create an English-language article. And why would I submit an unedited Google translation, if I speak English. And also, I can actually read Japanese. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well why didn't you say that when I asked you the question above? Which part of my question If I have misinterpreted, then please, be so kind as to explain exactly what you meant with "use google translation to translate the Japanese Wikipedia". did you not read? I'm starting to get a little annoyed here with incompetence. I'm going to put the kettle on, make a brew, have a cigarette, to calm down - before I end up smashing my laptop to pieces. Wesley☀Mouse 19:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy, Wesley. Misreadings and misinterpretations happen. No need to break things over it, especially things that cost money. Moscow, I am not yet convinced of the Natalie (Natasha?) thing; write it up, that's a good idea, and we'll see. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second the "take it easy, Wesley". Wesley, please stop throwing around words like hounding, harassment, incompetence, etc. What we have here is a content disagreement, and people who are talking to work that out. You know what that is? That's a good thing, because it's people working together to try to make the encyclopedia better. We don't all agree entirely on how that should go; hence the discussion. Using terms like you are doing does not further the discussion; it's just antagonistic, and there's no need for that when people are actively working to try to find consensus. </lecture> LadyofShalott 01:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the promised article about Natalie. If are still not convinced, I can ask people from Portal:Japan to come here. Moscowconnection (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry LadyofSharlott, but I was getting totally frustrated at the number of times everyone was offering advice, stating wiki-pages for guidance, and every time we're being told that we are misinterpreting the rules. It does appear like stubbornness to some degree. I personally feel that all the hard work and advice that yourself, Drmeis, Writ Keeper, and myself have given to Moscowconnection, is just being thrown back into our faces - which is being disrespectful to your levels of experience on the project. Wesley☀Mouse 11:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you keep this discussion going for so long about whether an official music industry site is a "blog" (something which the Japanese Wikipedia could clear up instantly) when it is clear that you can't read Japanese? It looks like you're just picking a fight at this point, which is not helpful for anyone. Shii (tock) 02:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still not clear that Natalie.mu is a major entertainment news portal for music, comics, and comedians, and not a blog? And that it is okay to link to official YouTube channels (although probably only on the articles for the songs themselves if they exist) because if it is an upload by the band itself or their record label it is not a copyright violation as they are putting the content up themselves? And that all videos by YouTube partners have 15 second advertisements before them because they need to make money somehow? Because that's what seems to still be the issue here, apparently.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also alternate forms of cover art are in no way forbidden unless they are dramatically identical to each other that having another version doesn't help matters.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That Natalie.mu is a reliable source is far from clear, yes. Ryulong, you've been around here long enough to know that linking 31 YouTube videos for one song is silly. I never claimed it was a copyright violation to link YouTube videos and I don't think it is, but that was never my point. As for alternate cover "art", I didn't say it was forbidden--I said it was excessive to have two covers for a two-sentence article. The rules don't forbid a second cover, but they don't mandate that there be one in the first place. It's editorial judgment. A plethora of videos, sourcing from an entertainment portal, extra covers, all in a stub = fan site. That is my position. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie.mu is indeed a reliable source. It is not a blog, despite the fact you thought it was, even if it is owned by a company that also hosts blogs. It's an entertainment news aggregate that focuses on music, manga, and owarai comedians. They will also occasionally have interviews with major musical artists. I'm still not following why you and Wesley believe it is not a reliable source, when multiple other news aggregates refer to it. Also, I saw that you removed commentary by the composer regarding the song on one of the articles. This is completely allowable, even though you dismissed it as a promotion from the creator or something. I will agree that having a link to every single iteration of a music video is excessive, but alternate album artwork is still not at all forbidden and never has been, because both images are used to identify the subject, which is all that is necessary when it comes to music articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't Drmies who initially stated Natalie.me is a blogsite, it was I who said that first. Seeing as Natasha Inc is the hosting site for Natalie.mu, and also Natasha Inc mention they deal with blogs, then it does leave the question whether Natalie.mu is a blog or not in a very undefined area. Looking at similar blog-hosting wesbites, Natalie.mu does bear some layout similarities to blogspot.com and many other blogssite. However, if Japanese entertainment sites are known to have a specific preference in laying out their sites in a similar fashion, would be left open for interpretation. As for the artwork, from the way Drmies has explained things, he has never said having alternative artwork is forbidden, but has stated that as the article is relatively small in context size, then having two artworks at this stage would be overpowering to an article - but including it as the article grows more in size wouldn't be objected. What we need to start aiming for here is compromising the situation. Are there any "policies/guidelines" that would prevent using the alternative artwork as a thumbnail image elsewhere in the article, on a temporary basis, and then moved to the infobox once the article has grown in size? Wesley☀Mouse 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your reasoning that you do not believe Natalie.mu is a reliable source is because it just happens to be owned by a blog-hosting company and it resembles other blogs you've seen? I'm afraid you are just extremely mistaken in that regard. I have expanded upon this below, as I did not catch this reply as I was crafting up my comment farther down. And the {{extra album cover}} template is meant to keep the artwork out of the way of the prose.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Natalie (website) yesterday, haven't you read it? I've already posted the link above in the discussion as a reply to you. It should be clear from it that Natalie is a major news content provider. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't yet read all the almost four million article here, though I'm making progress; I hadn't seen the link. That it's a notable site, sure, that I'll accept (good work, by the way)--but that it's a reliable source, that's something else. For instance, we don't accept the Daily Mail for BLP information--it's a tabloid. Reliable sources are highly independent of the material they report on, and I am not convinced there is such editorial independence in this case (and others, like Allkpop). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Cause what you are saying is like arguing whether Rolling Stone or Billboard are influenced by record companies, and removing all their citations basing on a pure assumption. Natalie is an independent and respectable source, that should be enough. (Thank you very much for your comment about the article, by the way.) Moscowconnection (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It may be plausible then if we're getting WikiProject Japan involved, to also invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Media and Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism too, seeing as this is in regards to a website that deals with media and journalism. We might as well cover all aspects of this. However, it may be worth noting what one editor mentioned at Drmies' talk page (and I quote) - "the issues may be 1. copy vio, and 2. how much information is appropriate for inclusion in each article. The YouTube links direct to videos that appear to have been uploaded by the band, however, research concerning their legal ownership (as opposed to ownership by a label) should be verified. Concerning quantities of information, my thoughts are that the main discography should include it all. If there are editors who are compiling and verifying the lists, it may be the case where Wikipedia becomes the only complete and accurate account of the band's works. In my experience, allmusic and other similar databases lack significant quantities of information. Allmusic just does not have the staff to handle the massive job. In fact, I became so frustrated with the databases that I emailed allmusic, and I am now receiving updates from them. I think that if adequate attention is paid to these lists (with good references provided), Wikipedia can ultimately stand above the online database organizations for both completeness and accuracy. - maybe a bit of a challenge, but do-able in my opinion. On articles where the specific subject text could be dwarfed by the complete discography, it may be argued that the inclusion of the complete discography, in that case, would divert focus away from the subject matter specific to the article.". Some valid points from an observation of an editor with a lot of experience in this type of field. Wesley☀Mouse 18:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He asked for assistance from WP:JAPAN because Natalie.mu is a Japanese language site. I do not understand why it is being questioned as a reliable source. They are effectively a Japanese Rolling Stone or NME. Moscowconnection was wrong in thinking that having 31 separate links to the different versions of the music videos of one song was allowable. But Natalie.mu has proven to be a reliable source. They have interviews with major artists such as Does ([2]), Meg ([3]), Sug ([4]), Orange Range ([5]), Denki Groove ([6]), Perfume ([7]), Kishidan ([8]), and these are all from within the past month and a half. A random music blog, as you two are calling it, would not have the clout to speak to musicians who have sold thousands of records and charted on both of Japan's major record sales charts, the Oricon and the Japan Hot 100. The arguments that Natalie.mu is not a reliable source to me have not made sense, mostly because it stems from Moscowconnection being misunderstood.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ryulong; those are helpful comments. Pardon me for continuing this thread--are there third-party sources that comment on them? That's what I'm looking for in determining whether it's a reliable source or not. That it's notable as a WP subject is established by you and Moscowconnection, but I want to see some evidence--that not every site gets to interview such celebrities is clear, but we shouldn't draw our own conclusions from that, as you know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third party sources that comment on Natalie.mu's reporting? I think their articles are simply republished by larger news portals, like MSN or Yahoo. I'm not sure what you're looking for though.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me for a moment, as I'm still not at 100% focusing level, due to unforeseen circumstances. I wholeheartedly understand why Moscowconnection has invited WP:JAPAN for assistance, and that is perfectly reasonable - I would have done the same if it was I in this situation. If you note, I also suggested that perhaps seeking assistance from WP:MEDIA and WP:JOURNALISM would also be beneficial - the more people casting eyes on this from a variety of related projects, the better we'd all be a working towards a resolution on this. All this "misunderstanding" and "misinterpreting" is easily done in this enviornment. As you are probably aware, it is harder to try and understand written context over verbal conversation - tones get mixed up; or a person may not be able to put across their meanings in written format in an easy-explanatory manner. This isn't a fault of Moscowconnection, but it may be worth an idea if the user feels he is being misunderstood or misinterpreted, that he breaks down what he is trying to put across in a simplified manner. Wesley☀Mouse 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Moscowconnection's request at the Wikiproject Japan page and thought I'd come over here. Anyways, I cannot find anything in Music Natalie that is biased, gossipy or downright unreliable. It does not market itself as a place to go for gossips, unlike allkpop, which you cited. Perhaps there are one or two articles, like the recent report about AKB48 members having to leave because of scandals, can be considered as gossips. However, those articles were also published by Oricon, a source that is already deemed reliable by other editors. Overall, I think that Natalie is reliable enough to use as a ref for BLP. As for the blog part, even Oricon runs a blogsite Blog Oricon. Does it make Oricon any less reliable? No, as long as you do not mistakenly take the information on the blogs. Additionally, Natalie is also listed as a Kabushiki gaisha, which makes it a company in its own right, putting it on the same level as Oricon. Last but not least, even editors on Japanese articles use Music Natalie (and Comic Natalie) as a source. If the Japanese editors can find it reliable, then why shouldn't we?--Lionratz (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Member colours[edit]

They are assigned members colours, so that fans could support their favourite member by wearing coloured T-shirts and waving light sticks of the same colour. Maybe it also helps a new fan to learn all the members. Cute doesn't always wear their colours, they do it for some songs.

A concert looks like this:

I haven't been able to to find an official video where you can see the fans, but they they all wear coloured T-shirts. They are shouting cause they learn what to shout (and how to dance and wave). Like, someone invents the cheers, and everyone learns them. When Airi Suzuki sings her solo line, you can hear them shouting "Airi!"; and it's like that for every member. It's all learned. It's called wotagei, literally meaning "wota art".

Examples of Cute members wearing their colours:

  • Cute - Seishun Song (Live)
  • Cute - Happy na Onna no Ko Moscowconnection (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write the article, and verify it properly, and we'll see. It's interesting. Ridiculous, but possibly not crazy. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment of yours placed "Seishun Song (Live)" in "As Seen On: Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]" on YouTube. :))))) (There's a link to a YouTube blog called "As Seen On: Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]" near the video. The blog entry also shows the Wikipedia edit that triggered the creation of the entry. Blogs are generated automatically by computer. It's a YouTube's secret how. It's, like, when a video receives some amount of views from a website, the website is awarded by having a link to it placed on YouTube.) Moscowconnection (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To archive or not to archive, that is the question[edit]

D'ya like my Shakespeare pun there? Anyhow, to the point I shall get. According to WP:TALKCOND, when large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections. As the size is a little lengthy, then an archive would be reasonable. Although, keeping it to manual archiving might be better than allowing a MizsaBot start storing threads that may be needed to reference. The first 5 posts in here are well over 12 months old, and could do with archiving, and thus free up browser space. OK I know there are to threads regarding page moves, but as they are now redundant and won't bear any affect on any future move requests (if any happen). There is nothing wrong in archiving them, plus copies of them can also be found in the WP:RM archives.

Also, the banner shell was removed, and I have restored it back per instructions at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell which advises that when more than two and fewer than six banners are present on the talk page, then banner shells are used - as there are more than two projects a banner shell is warranted. Wesley☀Mouse 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also restored archiving. I hope you don't mind me removing it again. I thought you said you didn't mind, but it's back again now. I don't really see a point in doing it every two months. Let's just do it one time for very old discussions. You can ask a bot to archive everything prior to 2012. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you got mistaken Moscow. I never restored the auto-archiving, but when I restored the bannershell I forgot to remove the notice about MiszaBot too - easy mistake especially if you knew the kind of week I've had, not been an easy one trying to get my head around bereavements etc. But working on here is taking my mind off things slightly. Wesley☀Mouse 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know, I've read your talk page. I'm very sorry to hear about it. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the older posts pre-2012 get archived, then we would need to add an "archive search" box, which is done by adding "search=yes" in the talkheader template. Wesley☀Mouse 14:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great. The archive is not long, so we probably can archive a few more threads there instead of creating another one. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you do with an archive, didn't you know? You continue to fill up one archive until it is at a specific KB size, and then create a new one. May I suggest familiarising yourself with Help Archive page, so that you also know how the archive works. Wesley☀Mouse 17:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way to do an archive. It's not the only one, not even the only valid one. LadyofShalott 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are loads of ways to archive, I noticed that too. But the version I use is the one I found to be easy to understand, and simple enough to modify if needs be. Wesley☀Mouse 09:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know there are other ways to do something, please don't imply in a snarky manner that your preferred method is the only one. LadyofShalott 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean, my comment was (as I thought) in a helpful manner, it wasn't meant to come across as snarky. Don't forget LadyofSharlott, I'm not fully compus mentus at the moment, so some of my comments may sound unusual - which is understandable considering the current circumstances. Wesley☀Mouse 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes[edit]

Any reason why the hatnote is being removed? The first time it was removed, the reason given was "since the articles were redirected, removing the links for now"; and the second time "Hat notes are only for articles that are not disambiguated". However, looking at WP:HAT these notes are used to help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page. As there are two articles and a disambiguated page in existence Cute (Japanese band), Cute (Maltese band), and [[Cute {Band)]]; then the hat note would be a requirement would it not? Wesley☀Mouse 14:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit summary: [9]. Moscowconnection (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense then. From what I see, the wrong hatnote was used. Instead of the one that says "about..." (which was used) this article should have had "for other uses see..." which is what WP:NAMB seems to stipulate. But that is very confusing, seeing as WP:HAT gives examples of hatnotes, but tends to sway towards using "about..." - would this be something that needs to be brought to the attention to the village pump? Re-write both those help pages to explain things in Layman's terms. Wesley☀Mouse 14:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a brainwave idea, and it could be something that may or may not play to our advantage here. We've already established there's two articles for a band with the same name in different global locations (X (American band) and X (Australian band). Would it be plausible to use those as a template example, seeing how they are styled etc, and use those ideas onto both Cute (Japanese band) and Cute (Maltese band)? Could be beneficial if we're to aim for GA-class in the future on both articles. Wesley☀Mouse 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnotes are entirely unnecessary unless "Cute (band)" redirects here, which it doesn't. This title is already disambiguated, and titles that are disambiguated do not need the hatnote to differentiate between them.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've just confused things even more. Upon reading the usage paragraph at WP:HAT it recommends using a hatnote on an article which "uses a more specific, disambiguated title". As this article is using a more specific disambiguated title such as "Cute (Japanese band)", and there's another article called "Cute (Maltese band)" that a hatnote would need to be used to direct a reader to the disambiguation page, which in this case is "Cute (band)". However, which version of hatnote that would be used is very vague, WP:NAMB says an improper hatnote would be "For other uses see..."; yet in my opinion that version would be more logical one to use. It is informative to a reader that there are other articles with "Cute" in the title, as well as another band with the same name. The other side of this would be looking at how X (American band) and X (Australian band) layout their articles. Neither have a hatnote; which is why I re-suggested above whether it would be ideal to style Cute (Japanese band) and Cute (Maltese band) in a similar way to the X band articles. More so when those X articles are used on a few Wiki-help pages; and it would be good to use X band articles as an inspiration to aim towards. Wesley☀Mouse 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've honestly never seen that in practice. No one is going to be sent to Cute (Maltese band) if they typed "C-ute" or "Cute (Japanese band)" in the search bar. No other band has this differentiation unless one is "Cute (band)" and the other is "Cute (Maltese band)".—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMB is about all types of hatnotes. "Other uses" is used simply as an example. They could have used "about". As I understand it, at least. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting intrigued by all of this. X (American band) doesn't have a hatnote, yet X (Australian band) uses the following "For other bands named "X", see X (band)". I'm tempted to investigate this one further, I'll scout around and see why some articles use hatnotes and some don't. And also fathom why WP:HAT and WP:NAMB contradict each other on how hatnotes are used. Wesley☀Mouse 20:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There probably shouldn't be one on X (Australian band) either.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history for X (Australian band), Ceyockey (talk · contribs) (who's admin) added the hatnote on 17 December 2005. So its been there the last 7 years - probably a valid reason why it was added, and we won't know the reason unless we contact Ceyockey personally. Wesley☀Mouse 20:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'll be logging out shortly, as I've to be up early tomorrow for the funeral of my mother. Not looking forward to it at all, and it may mean I'll be taking some days off editing to bring myself back to normality. Just TB me about comments on here, so that I can check back on my return. Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment upgrade[edit]

I'm quite surprised, but pleased to see this article has grown at lot in content over the last couple of weeks. With the amount of detail that is now covered, I would say it no longer qualifies as a Start-Class, and should be promoted to a C-class. Feel free to alter that in your own time. I however, shall now take this article off my watchlist. Regards and best wishes - Wesley☀Mouse 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I also have to thank the person who decided to remain anonymous. The rating is not very important if the article itself is not good. I will just need to concentrate on writing a proper article here, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to spend the summer on Wikipedia. I want to make it a better page but it will require a thorough search for sources, and the last time I tried I ended up finding something more interesting about another group and adding it there. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4[edit]

The following is a closed 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 per WP:MOSTM, as pointed out by Aspects, and consensus in previous cases. Mdann52 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Cute (Japanese band) → °C-ute – Per WP:MOS-TM, "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". As all reliable sources utilize "°C-ute" (although with the Unicode Centigrade symbol), this page should be located at "°C-ute" rather than "Cute".—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please be careful when voting. It's a very difficult problem, it should be brought to the attention of more people. The name "℃-ute" was (most probably) specifically designed to make it recognizable and searchable in the net, while "Cute" is neither. On the other hand, how are people supposed to type the degree symbol "°", let alone the "℃"? The article Celsius says the Centigrade symbol "℃" is viewable "on computers that properly support Unicode", but in fact it requires the East Asian language support installed on your system. Windows Vista and above have it installed by default, but Windows XP doesn't and I don't know about Unix and Mac OS X. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's really a "recognizability" issue. This is the way the name is written in all reliable sources, and no one refers to the band as "Cute" other than the English Wikipedia. And I purposefully chose the two-character "°C" combination rather than the "℃" because of accessibility issues.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were considering accessibility issues, you would have chosen "C-ute", since the degree sign, or the Celsius symbol are not accessible. They are not typable, give weird URLs, and are not ASCII. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But "C-ute" isn't used by any reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose MOS:TM It would be "C-ute" at most. The example of "Macy*s" shows no asterisk, so there should not be a Centigrade symbol, since the name is not "Degree-Celsius-Ute". -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:MOSTM, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." Aspects (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither "C-ute" nor "Cute" are in use to refer to this band. It's always "°C-ute".—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose you pronounce it "Degrees centigrade ute" in speech? --BDD (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "C-ute", per Daily Yomiuri Online. Nobody is using the "℃" character. See [http://www.amazon.com/C-Ute/e/B001LIEH3G/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel Amazon], CD Universe, and AllMusic. Kauffner (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that the degree symbol ("°" and "C" together instead of "℃") isn't in use.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Allmusic and Amazon (CD Universe simply links to Amazon) list the group as "C-Ute", which is absolutely incorrect. I submitted a correction form at Allmusic. I hope they'll read it. I didn't tell them to rename the group to Cute that could be too drastic, I simply gave them 3 choices to choose from: °C-ute, Cute and C-ute. (Everything is better than "C-Ute", so I wanted to raise the chances of them renaming the group in case they read my message.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should ask Tsunku. Can anybody tweet to him in Japanese about this? I can but I wouldn't be able to discuss it in Japanese. We should also tell him that Wikipedia needs photos of Hello! Project groups. (Someone from the Up-Front Agency could either upload photos to Wikimedia Commons or give a permission to use some photos in the English Wikipedia. --Moscowconnection (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support According to [10] (not a WP:RS, but still has information of value): "The character "℃" (degree Celsius) is substituted for "C" in notation for the purpose of expressing ardor". Because of this semantic significance of the ℃ and because the ℃ character (which, incidentally, displays fine on my Linux system) is a Unicode compatibility character with a decomposition mapping to "°C" (which, incidentally, is easily typeable on my system), it seems that the preferable article title is °C-ute (with °C being two characters, not one). (A Unicode compatibility decomposition mapping is a formal recommendation by the Standard that a character should be expressed by one or more other characters. Compatibility characters were included in the standard for purposes of round-trip compatibility with legacy standards, and should not be used outside of those contexts.) How easy it is to type a character or how good Unicode typeface/rendering support is on various operating systems is irrelevant for purposes of choosing an article title. The official discography ([11]) consistently uses "℃-ute" to represent the name. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kesha remains at that title despite some requested moves to Ke$ha, which is used plenty in reliable sources. See also Talk:Volkswagen Up#Requested move for an example of a unanimous move in the opposite direction, featuring several article titles which ignore official stylization. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reliable sources that refer to "Ke$ha" as "Kesha", but there are no reliable sources that refer to "°C-ute" as "Cute".—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support °C-ute or Cute, Oppose C-ute The name of the group is often followed by its katakana reading, like this: ℃-ute(キュート), it's written like this only one time in a news article to show how the name is read. The Hepburn romanization of "キュート" is "Cute". So basically, it's like writing "°C-ute (Cute)". As for "C-ute", Ryulong already said above that he finds the version odd, and it doesn't look good to me too.
  • Now I will list different examples I've found.
    • ℃-ute
      • (doesn't really count as an English-language source) Kawaii Girl Japan: [12]
    • C-Ute (unacceptable, it simply shows that website editors can't be relied upon)
      • Allmusic: [13]
      • YouTube (autogenerated, description taken from Allmusic): [14]
      • (shop) Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/C-Ute/e/B001LIEH3G/]
    • Cute
      • (shop) CD Japan: [15]
        • CD Japan also calls the group "Cute" in prose: "UP-FRONT AGENCY, a Japanese label working with very popular female idol groups such as Morning Musume, Berryz Kobo, and Cute": [16] (CD Japan / Neowing is a big Japanese online retailer and the place where most people from abroad buy Japanese CDs)
      • (shop) Play-Asia.com [17]
      • (Japanese-language source) The group's official YouTube channel, all the videos had "cute" in the tags: [18] (link to Web Archive cause YouTube hid all tags recently)
      • (some releases) Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/Cute-Berryz-Kobo-Gekiharo-EPBE-5423/dp/B005QRNZGS], [http://www.amazon.com/Berryz-Kobo-Cute-Single-EPBE-5442/dp/B008CQCB1U/]
      • (Japanese-language shop, the group is listed as "℃-ute (Cute) キュート") HMV: [19]
    • C-ute
      • (a single use in 1 article) Daily Yomiuri Online: [20]
      • (some releases) CD Japan: [21]
      • (Japanese-language source, used only a couple of times in one-sentence English posts) The group's official Facebook: [22] (its address is actually "Cute.Official", but Facebook doesn't allow hyphens, so it doesn't count)
    • °C-ute
      • Yumeki Magazine (a website in Spanish, looks marginally reliable: [23], [24]
        • (Added on September 23, 2012) The Spanish Wikipedia now has an article about Yumeki Magazine: Yumeki Magazine. (It was created on September 21, 2012, and doesn't have any reliable sources.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official addresses:
  • Resuming, my opinion is that if the Wikipedia article remains at "Cute (Japanese band)" (and prior to May it was at "C-ute"), more sources will use the name "Cute". But I also support renaming it to °C-ute cause it's the official name. --Moscowconnection (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, stop relying on URLs which don't mean anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply wanted to finish the list. --Moscowconnection (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per MOS:TM, WP:OFFICIAL, and longstanding precedent. We do not accede to whatever weird typographic conceits celebrities and performers choose to use. Powers T 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:TM says "choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)". No reliable source refers to this group as "Cute" without the degree symbol or hyphen.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be okay with C-ute, but I'm afraid it would be misleading about the pronunciation. Unless it actually is pronounced "see-yoot"? Powers T 12:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Japanese pronounce it "Kyūto", in the same way they pronounce the English word "cute". So I think the natural English pronunciation would be "Cute" (I do support renaming to "°C-ute" but I don't like "C-ute". "C-ute" is much better for Google, though. "Cute (Japanese band)" is not in the search results for "cute".) --Moscowconnection (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's simply how the name is written in the Roman alphabet and we have no other variations that appear in reliable sources. And we already provide the pronunciation so there will be no ambiguity.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "C-ute" a good idea. It looks confusing, it will be repeated throughout the article. We already have Allmusic and YouTube writing it in a strange way. If the Wikipedia article was at "Cute" then, it might not have happened. And we have found only one mention of "C-ute" in a reliable English-language source. (By the way, I actually wrote to YouTube support months ago saying "C-Ute" was not correct. The profile is still at "C-Ute".) --Moscowconnection (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    YouTube really isn't our problem. And that's the Hello! Project management's mistake with their channel name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not their channel. I'm talking about something automaticaly generated by YouTube: [25]. If we base solely on reliable sources, we should rename the article to "C-Ute", cause Rovi (or Allmusic) surely has editors who know best (and who pronounce it "Cee-yoot"). =D --Moscowconnection (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you remember the discussion about whether the group is ever referred to as "キュート"? I've just found one article in Asahi Shimbun where it's simply "キュート"!: [26]. (By the way, it's a good argument for leaving it as "Cute", since "キュート" is romanized as "Cute"). --Moscowconnection (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "C-ute" or °C-ute or whatever else is most prevalent among sources. Our dislike of mimicking quirky typography in the names of modern topics is surely overruled by the need for natural titles as opposed to inventing our own - in this case tagging "(Japanese band)" on the end. Nobody else calls them "Cute (Japanese band)", so we shouldn't either. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:MOS-TM as cited by Aspects above. Dekimasuよ! 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS-TM says "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)". No one has ever written the name of this band as "Cute" other than us on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read what Moscowconnection wrote? He showed that "Cute" is used. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's used on a series of translated-to-English music shops, none of which are exactly reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources, whatever language they may be in, use "°C-ute" (although with the unicode centigrade symbol).—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not getting any hits for it using the centigrade symbol on Google, Google News, Google Books; all come up with just "Ute" -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Google probably can't handle the ℃ symbol.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Google.co.jp will work. (56,700 hits in Google News.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post closure[edit]

God damn it. MOS-TM says Do not make up new forms. "Cute" is a form used by no reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is a new form in the sense intended by MOS-TM. MOS-JP says "For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo?) instead of Sandābādo)," and the English spelling of キュート is Cute. Dekimasuよ! 06:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The group doesn't go by キュート. It goes by ℃-ute. In this discussion we found that no reliable sources use "Cute" to refer to this band.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "No established usage in English-language sources". Japanese-language sources don't count. --Moscowconnection (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Japanese language sources happen to be the only sources that exist, then according to that bit of naming policy you just pointed out, "follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about". So by that logic we use "°C-ute".—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "°C-ute" follows the conventions of the Japanese language. "キュート" does. "°C-ute" is not kanji, hiragana or katakana. --Moscowconnection (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters because "°C-ute" is the only form that is consistently used throughout all reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a major flaw in the reasoning: the reliable sources aren't in English. Japanese newspapers can use many strange characters. And the forementioned section of the English Wikipedia's manual of style mentions German, Turkish, and Portuguese names as examples. All the languages mentioned use the Latin script. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we need to come up with an entirely different set of rules and standards because this group is Japanese in origin, despite having a name that is parsed in Latin script (with some punctuation marks)? That is called a double standard.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, it's a double standard (t.A.T.u., will.i.am). But "Cute" is very good, I like it. I believe it's the right way to write it. (You should go to the WP:MOSTM talk page and fight the people who wrote the guideline.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Cute" is not the proper way and because it's a double standard we shouldn't have had this debate closed by a non-admin.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The move review discussion has been closed. I think I better stop cause the article is already at what I believe is the right title. Helping to keep the discussion alive is not a clever thing to do from my part in this situation. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kana in the opening[edit]

I notice the the kana "キュート" is back in the opening. I suspect most readers will assume that this is the band's Japanese name. But in fact it is only a pronunciation guide. So I think it is quite misleading. This is all discussed in detail at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/May_2012, and I thought it was resolved a long time ago. Kauffner (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to remove it but for whatever reason leave in "Kyuto".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to remove "℃-ute" (as you did) cause it's the Japanese name of the band. By the way, i agree with Kauffner, there is no need for the kana "キュート" in the opening. But I won't remove it cause I don't want to start an edit war with you. (Cause I know you would revert back.) (How is the article AKB48 doing? I removed it from my watchlist thanks to you.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cute (Japanese idol group). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cute (Japanese idol group). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cute (Japanese idol group). 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cute (Japanese idol group). 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete Single Collection" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Complete Single Collection. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Member Chart[edit]

Please see this [27] with the suggestion of a chart. Currently, the notation in the chart isn't clear, but the intention is to track membership in the group over time. It seems like it would be difficult to maintain, and seems like something more appropriate to a fan site then an encyclopedia? Denaar (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline isn't really necessary if the years the members were in the group were already listed. Like you said, it feels more appropriate for a fan site. lullabying (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cute_(Japanese_group)&oldid=1206850970"