Talk:Ayumi Hamasaki discography

Templates
I have created two templates, Template:Ayumi Hamasaki albums and Template:Ayumi Hamasaki singles. To add them to new albums or singles, add   for new albums, and    for singles. I don't like a unique one for both albums and singles, because they become too long rather fast. Feel free to work with them as you wish, and if you have critics about them, please use the Talk page for each of them. -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

a song is born
Is anyone ever going to add it? -- chsf 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Images
The images here are serving a decorative purpose, and should be removed. See both lists at Mariah Carey discography to realize it is not necessary to have decorative images (which are not covered by the Fair use policy, 8th point). -- ReyBrujo 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RIAJ Certifications
Just so you people know, Platinum is 250,000. So that means an album with 750 000 sales is "3x platinum". HOWEVER, the next certification on the list is "Million". Evidently, that goes for albums that sell 1 000 000 copies. Therefore, an album that sold 3 000 000 would be "3x Million" and NOT "11x platinum". This is because it is given the certification of the next level. You wouldn't call a 800 000 selling album "8x gold", it would be "3x platinum", and this cycle continues with "million". This official RIAJ page proves my point: http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/index.html ... Please follow the guidelines of that page. If you would like me to translate anything from it into English I'd be more than happy. Thanks alot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evolution7931 (talk • contribs).
 * Thanks for the information! -- ReyBrujo 01:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Asia" sales
Before adding "Asia" sales, cite your sources. I thought you couldn't find out Asia Sales and you could only find how high it was on the chart >_> X2RADialbomber 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1,000,876 (HongKong)? that's impossible >< User:?? 20:09, January 7 2007 (UTC)

I added I am... Singapore sales but I don't know if the source is valid for wikipedia :S User:Slowmoth 12:49, 11 February 2007 (GMT)

Why the remix albums and singles are not the same style as the albums one?
There is some rule about the tables? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slowmoth (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

alternate covers
I think there should be a another row or column showing the CD+DVD covers. All of her recent work and her upcoming work have at least 2 covers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.121.202 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that is needed. There is a reason why there is a seperate page for the album/single. The main cover is the enough. Icaazn614 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
I have fixed the capitalization in this article. Please remember that our trademark guidelines state we should use proper capitalization instead of uppercase, even if the trademark is in uppercase. -- ReyBrujo 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree for reasons we have been over on the talk page of the hamasaki main article. The manual of style consists of a set of guidelines, not rules. Your argument is solely based on referring to some article which is a logical fallacy. But since it seems (having read many of your contributions) almost everything you do here is based on these guidelines I have one for you: please remember that our policies and guidelines clearly state that "Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process." You do not have the right to call the shots even if you have a zillion contributions. You are to reach concensus with other users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.161.60.71 (talk • contribs).
 * The guidelines and style guides exist to be respected. Otherwise, people would be insulting new users just because "Please do not bite the newcomers is a guideline and not a rule". It is accepted that, if some guideline, policy or style guide exists right now it is because, at one moment, there was consensus to create it. Note that Naming conventions is a policy, and clearly states, in its Album titles and band names section, that In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, 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 (band)). Finally, consensus has been build through the years and discussions as to whether apply the policies, guidelines and style guides. As an example, there had been multiple discussions about this matter, check the threads at WikiProject Songs, J-pop article, Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, WikiProject Japan, etc. In fact, I used to put articles in uppercase according to japanese names, but then understood the guidelines make this place consistent. -- ReyBrujo 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And again some wonderful piece of rhetoric writing. Again you indulge in multiple logical fallacies. Putting that aside, maybe there once was concencus, but I believe it is very clear that such a consensus does not exist at this point in time (given the fact that we currently do not agree). Even if there is a naming policy, 'enforcing' such a policy in any way would be against the first key policy which is to build consensus. (Oh and last time I checked consensus was still something other than the rule of the majority.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.161.60.71 (talk • contribs).
 * Ah, I hate when people use terms like "rhetoric" and "fallacy", because they never explain why it was a rhetoric, or where is the fallacy. Let's set the facts: a) there is a policy, a guideline and a style guide that state how to capitalize article titles; b) at one time, yesterday or five years ago, there was consensus enough to turn essays into either policy, guideline or style guide; c) you (and others) do not agree with them; d) me (and others) do agree with them. So, what to do? Well, go to the name policy, and suggest an amendment for it, like something silly like "Wikipedia should respect trademarks because the companies owning the trademarks would prefer so" or something interesting like "Wikipedia should respect trademarks because the casual user is more likely to remember the trademark capitalization than Wikipedia policy", and let the community speak. Yes, consensus is temporal (something that had huge consensus may have lost support), but unless someone really wants to change it with an amendment, there is no way to gauge the consensus. And we won't be asking users to declare whether they support or reject a policy every 3 months to keep them up to date.
 * Geez, too many words, guess this qualifies again as a "rhetoric" answer ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, these are the fallacies I was talking about (given your record here I thought you would be able to figure it out yourself): your argument is constructed around two things: 1) the authority of documents (in this case the policies of wikipedia). Because it was written in those specific documents it must be right, right? Although a typical appeal to authority refers to the authority of a person, this version here seems to be similar. 2) You appeal to the 'consensus' that was once reached. Because an actual consensus was never reached it is a decision by some form of majority. An argument of this kind is a fallacy because it assumes the authority of the many. Trying to persuade others using flawed arguments makes the effort rhetoric (using the negative connotation of the word, of course), not because it uses many words (but of course you knew that).
 * Although I do agree that trying to make an amendment for the name policy is a way to change how things are done, I question the authority of such policies (in this environment) in general.

Covers
How are the covers not related to the article? Every other Discography of Singers on the English Wikipedia uses Covers to show the different albums/singles of an artist. Can the user who took the covers away please explain this further? X2RADialbomber 06:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Showing the album cover in a simple list of albums is considered decorative, which goes against our Fair use criteria point 8. Ideally, discographies should not have images, only the articles about the singles or albums themselves (and only when they discuss the content of the cover only). Those that do have covers are going to be removed sooner or later. -- ReyBrujo 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'd have to say that if it's against the rules, I'll make sure that no one adds the images again, yet I know a lot of people will try to add the images again. The only reason I'd say to keep the covers is because people wanting to buy these CD's might want to see the Cover Art before purchasing to make sure they do not buy bootlegs. Although that is the case, if they really wanted to purchase the album/single, I think they'd look into the main article of the album/single. X2RADialbomber 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They can always check the articles about the albums. I have a similar problem with capitalization; as you can imagine everybody uses the trademark (say, "SECRET" instead of "Secret") and I spent most of my time reverting these name changes. I take my time to explain the changes, yet they continue doing so. Wikipedia has its own set of rules, which indicate we should use fair use images only when absolutely necessary. Having them here can be considered decoration only. -- ReyBrujo 06:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I, along with other users, are online regularly to revert changes again. If people keep changing things, maybe we'll just have to protect the article. X2RADialbomber 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to list the discs produced by the artist, along with some summary data. The individual articles are where you can discuss, in detail, all aspects of the records, and where the cover is of some relevance. Our use of unfree media must be minimal, and we can list albums without using cover art. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My contributions as an anonymous poster are probably of no consequnce to most hardcore Wiki users, but do album covers really have to go? Pure lists of texts are almost textbook-like in their clinicalness, and remove a lot of the enjoyment of browsing discography pages, especially those artists where a lot of thought clearly went into the design( Pink Floyd espcially). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.231.37.93 (talk • contribs).
 * The contributions of every user are useful! In order to qualify for our fair use exemption, the cover must be discussed or explained. In most discographies, they are only shown along with the title and a few other facts that have nothing to do with the cover, as a decoration to get a list that is not so plain. It is not different from putting images of actors in a list of British actors that only contain name and age. The idea is to give here just enough information to make the list useful for what it is (a chronological list of albums and singles), no more. -- ReyBrujo 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sales
(miss)Understood and Secret SALes as not big like that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.52.40 (talk • contribs).

These sales need to be changed to Oricon numbers. If numbers from Avex are going to be reported instead, then all the other artist's should be changed for everyone to enjoy the benefit of their own management recording their sales, which would of course have its own biases depending on their statistical methods used. All the information detailed in Ayumi's information page is based on Oricon. All the information presented in the Media is either Oricon or RIAA. Even if Oricon has its own biases, it is highly trusted by the people and those are the numbers that should be used. People in the United States would trust numbers coming from Billboard more than the numbers that are coming out of RIAA, and hence Billboard numbers are the main numbers posted in an Artist's info page. Oricon is the equivalent in Japan.

Discography can NOT use own research. Proper citations and references are needed for sales data per WP:V and WP:BLP. Must use reliable, verifiable sources and not fan pages. ORICON does not list total sales and thus www.oricon.co.jp cannot be used. However if you can find an ORICON (or other verifiable news article) article that published total sales (Example B'z single data article: http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/19236/) then that can be used. Also, unfortunately every number must be referenced to the proper source, so also use the WP:CITE technique --Hedatari 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Secret's sales are incorrect, and I've tried fixing them but there's some automatic thing that happens that won't let me change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.23.15 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A bot considered your modification was vandalism (modifying numbers without a reference is a kind of vandalism, "adding wrong statements on purpose"). The bot won't revert you a second time, though. Also, when editing please add a summary (the "Edit summary" box below where you are editing, add something like "Updating sales according to Oricon" or similar). The bot should not mistake that with vandalism then. And please, if you have access to the source, could you add a small note about the source? (like the web page with the information, or if it is a magazine, the name of the magazine, number, date and page number?) That would really help us (most of the information found in Japanese discographies are completely unsourced, we sometimes don't know whether the numbers are right or wrong at all. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop someone from inflating Secret's sales numbers? I've provided 2 citations for the correct number of 666,396 copies sold but a few users keep changing the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitashot (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LPs
I thought she released 10 LPs in 2008? Shouldn't they be feature in the disc. page? 206.40.103.77 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

***?
A few of the albums have two or three asterisks, after them. I can't find any notes that match the asterisks, so what do they mean? 69.68.196.73 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Japanese Charts
After some consideration, I've decided to remove the album chart information for China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan because WP:GOODCHARTS doesn't have any good charts listed for those areas, and because the original contributor never stated what charts he or she used or provided any form of reference in the edit. Furthermore, it seems that on at least one occasion, the chart positions were distorted. エムエックスさん 話  14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Cleanup
This page needs major cleanup.
 * Chart positions of singles need to be sourced.
 * Remove redundant information (International remixes of a particular single..)
 * Lead expansion.
 * Music videos – list directors, year. Make into a table.
 * — These are just some of the issues. I'll start fixing, but I don't know any Japanese (to look on Oricon or something like that). Please leave your thoughts. Novice7  |  Talk  04:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Together When
Shouldn't this be considered a non-regular single since it was never given any physical release? I think it (along with How Beautiful You Are, You & Me, Song 4 U, Happening Here) should be placed in a category for Digital Singles. If someone could try and fix it up then that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Ayumi Hamasaki discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006122226/http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_chart_kind_cd=E&f_week=19&f_year=2010&f_type=week to http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_chart_kind_cd=E&f_week=19&f_year=2010&f_type=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914061315/http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/200908.html to http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/200908.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915153303/http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w101020.html to http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w101020.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommendation to fuse subsections
I noticed that a number of songs in both the Promotional Singles subsection as well as the Other Charted Songs subsection are virtually the same. Also, because the tracklisting and timeline of release are similar to one another, I am proposing that both these subsections be combined with each other since they both clearly fall outside AVEX's definition of an official single.

Zach (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ayumi Hamasaki discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821183338/http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_type=week&f_year=2014&f_month=&f_week=31&f_chart_kind_cd=T to http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_type=week&f_year=2014&f_month=&f_week=31&f_chart_kind_cd=T
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821193603/http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_chart_kind_cd=E&f_week=31&f_year=2014&f_type=week to http://www-new.gaonchart.co.kr/chart/album.php?f_chart_kind_cd=E&f_week=31&f_year=2014&f_type=week
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605131727/http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard0.aspx to http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard0.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629125506/http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard3.aspx to http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard3.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with RMX Works
not enough sources found to warrant a separate article So  Why  16:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirected, rather than merge, as no referenced material to move. Klbrain (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)