Talk:Band-Maid

9 February 2019 edit & revert

I reverted the edit made by Lewismaster on February 9, as I said in the edit comment, the effort to translate the article on the Italian wiki is admirable and no easy feat, however I believe the resulting article had too many issues to effectively deal with and as such have reverted the page to its original content. My main issue with the translation is reading through the article's first few paragraphs felt like reading a fansite rather than an encyclopedia; the information is correct, seemingly well-referenced, and it's undoubtedly of great interest to fans of the band but of very little value to most readers. I'll use the third paragraph of the main body as an example, my comments are added in parenthesis and italics:

The band took their first steps (colloquial use of language) playing in clubs in the Tokyo area as opening act for J-pop and idol groups, while recording their first mini-album. Their debut, titled Maid in Japan, was released on January 8, 2014 for the Japanese label Gump Records, an imprint of the management company Platinum Passport. (repeating the label and company is superfluous) The mini-album contains eight songs written by the authors Masahiko Fukui and Kentaro Akutsu (the latter formerly of the musical group Zero) (previous groups aren't of interest to this article) and arranged in collaboration with the band. (this info is better included in a separate article about the mini-album) The mini-album was followed in August 2014 by the maxi single "Ai to Jōnetsu no Matador" (愛 と 情 熱 の マ タ ド ー ル). (Japanese characters aren't needed and don't add anything)

The sources in this one paragraph include a spreadsheet from a fansite, a community driven IMDB style database, a men's entertainment site whose credibility I find doubtful, and a wiki from a website that appears to have been inactive since 2012.

In isolation these issues would not be insurmountable issues but taken together and combined in a single large edit such as this, is a bit too much. I believe much of the information can be used to greatly improve the quality of the article but proper sources need to found first and the information added to the existing article, rather replacing it wholesale. DragonFury (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I support this move by DragonFury, and will point out that Lewismaster's massive edit also removed a lot of recent edits made by other editors, and those were much better supported to boot. Info from other international Wiki's could be useful here, but as DragonFury said, it should still follow this site's rules on reliability and verifiability. Facts from other places can be added as appropriate, but I agree that this was just too much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Some of the sources and text you are citing as issues are in the article right now, I did not add them. Maybe you should cut it a little more. Or maybe not. I am puzzled at what you consider of interest for the readers of Wikipedia. If I remember correctly the scope of the encyclopedia is to inform the readers and the scope of the editors is to make articles as complete as possible. I don't remember censorship as part of Wikipedia statute, except on sensitive matters, and this is not one of them. "Most readers" won't read this article, but I do not think that you can be the arbiter of what "most readers" will find interesting if they read it. I guess that you are not used to peer reviews of large articles. What you call insormountable issues are what wiki editors should be doing all the time instead of wiping out everything. If you find issues you talk about them and change them one by one, as I did many times in the past. If you had checked the article right now, you would have found that many info are unsourced or wrong, that all the sources taken from the Band-Maid website are dead and that there is no text about music critics and reviews.

Regarding Japanese text, I tried to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Japanese terms rules: the names should be written in romaji first and then in kanji or kana. I could do it better, but I don't think that it's correct to eleminate Japanese characters altogether. Lewismaster (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are much more relevant for the specific points made by DragonFury above and perhaps he/she will chime in some more. But I would like to point out that you have not been subjected to "censorship" and it's not a violation of any sort of peer review process. Instead, some of the sources brought over from the Italian site were found to be unreliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually "a community driven IMDB style database and a wiki from a website that appears to have been inactive since 2012" are used as sources in the article right now. They were unreliable before my edit, but are still there. Lewismaster (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You're correct about the presence of those sources, but that was a problem that existed before your massive edit. Those sources can be targeted with "unreliable source" tags and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DragonFury's revision as well -- Lewismaster's wide-ranging edit contained too many trivial details which fall outside the scope of an economic and focused Wikipedia article. The expanded details might be of interest to fans already invested in the band, or might be the basis of a new page just for Miku's individual story. But the overall content of the edit outweighed its importance, and, in addition, the edit contained multiple grammar errors. Lewismaster's intent might be better served by focusing on one edit at a time, with a tougher criteria on what makes each edit essential. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox photo

For the photo to be used in the Band-Maid infobox, I have captured what I feel is a more useful image at a recent concert. I'm storing the old photo here if anyone wants to use it elsewhere in the article or elsewhere in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Doomsdayer520! Was that infobox picture taken at Gramercy Theatre or Mercury Lounge in NYC? --Hatto0467 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Gramercy on Sept. 26. That's of personal interest for fans; we can put it in the infobox caption if relevant. And if you're a super-fan, you might be interested to know that it was during "Hide-and-Seek". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a Japanese big fan of Band-Maid! I've seen their live show (Okyūji) in Tokyo in December 2017 and April 2018. That was a picture when they performed B-side song of "Glory" "Hide-and-Seek"!? It's great! Thank you for uploading that picture. --Hatto0467 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mini Albums dispute

Calling: @Dancingzombiex:, @Bowling is life:, @Hatto0467:

• I suggest that everyone discuss the proper layout of the Band-Maid Discography section here, because the last several days of revisions and reversions in the article are not getting us anywhere. Discuss whether the first three albums should be categorized separately as "Mini Albums", or if they should simply be considered rather short regular albums in the same list as the later full-length albums.
  
• Wikipedia actually has precedents for doing both of those, because "mini album" is a common term for a short album in Asia though it has not caught on worldwide.
  
• To prevent further confusion and hard feelings, my personal recommendation is to list all six albums together in the Discography section and to simply describe the first three as "mini" in the article's main text. This corresponds to the state of affairs that Bowling and Hatto are trying to preserve after DancingZombie's changes.
  ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, we have already been through this with Band-Maid; see Talk:Brand New Maid. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520:

I'm so sorry for being late. I think the first three albums (Maid in Japan, New Beginning, Brand New Maid) is no problem in the full-album section in English wikipedia because this is English wikipedia, not Japanese. (But in Japanese wikipedia, those albums are considered as "mini album") By the way, I edited Unseen World article but it was the short article because of poor English. Would you correct and expand it if you don't have problem?--Hatto0467 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding image

The interview referenced in the "Image and music" section includes a direct quote from Miku: "Band-Maid’s concept is about creating contrast – how we look and how we sound are worlds apart. One is cute and submissive in nature, the other is wild, powerful and dominant." If there is a valid source for a quote then it's perfectly valid to include it as such in an article. Other sources may not include the exact same words, but that doesn't mean the use of the word is incorrect. DragonFury (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally; the source I deleted is already referenced elsewhere in the article, including three times in the same section. DragonFury (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@DragonFury: There are some logical problems with your stance.

• First, the term "submissive" is widely regarded as an unfortunate stereotype for Asian women.
• Second, that Metal Hammer interview was with a person (Miku) who does not speak English fluently so someone translated her words, and there is no guarantee that the English word "submissive" matches the meaning of what she said originally in her native Japanese.
• Third, just because something is in a reliable source, that does not mean it MUST be in Wikipedia. There could be a New York Times article saying what Bob Dylan had for breakfast on July 12, 1979 because he met the journalist at the diner that morning, but that does not mean that all future encyclopedias have to say that Dylan enjoyed some pancakes on that date. If the pancakes ended up in Dylan's Wikipedia article, that factoid is not insulated from deletion forever just because it's from the New York Times.
• Removing "submissive" from the Band-Maid article hurts nothing and nobody, unless you really want to bureaucratic and inflexible about it. Your logic for NOT removing it is unconvincing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh... I don't know if you've noticed, but the members dress as maids. A maid is a servant to someone else, they "submit" to them. The word "submissive" is being used to describe what their appearance as maids implies and then how their music is the opposite of that. It has absolutely nothing to do with being Asian or a woman. The word "cute" does not work as a replacement for that. Xfansd (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh... I don't know if you've noticed the cultural ramifications of the word "submissive". The point of this discussion is to build a consensus on whether "maid" is synonymous with "submissive", and whether that distinction operates equally in English and Japanese. Also, I am merely a stand in (so far) for multiple editors who have mentioned this in edit summaries and elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think submissive is allowable -- it doesn't directly conflict with any other source, and it works with the band's established stylized persona. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Submissive is indeed an unfortunate stereotype for Asian women and if it was a comment made by a reviewer in a news article I wouldn't include it here. But seeing as it is a quote from one of the members, and it's included within quotation marks in the Wiki article, I say it's fair to include it. And I did consider the possibility of a mis-translation but unless we somehow get direct access to the original Japanese answer I'd give the writer and/or translator the benefit of the doubt. DragonFury (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I made my case in a disappointing discussion that I suspect is full of people who aren't Asian women (including myself) arguing over words to describe Asian women. Next time this comes up, refer discussants to DragonFury's conceptions of "fair" and "valid". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Miku Kobato

I'm planning to create Miku Kobato's article on English Wikipedia. Because she started her solo career as "cluppo" in April this year. In fact, another user created her article on Japanese Wikipedia and I also edited it in Japanese language. However, I'm a Japanese, not a native English speaker, so if I do create her article on English Wikipedia, it may be a short one. (I'll probably have to rely on DeepL Translator to edit her article.) Do you think her article deserves to be created? --Hatto0467 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a very solid chance that the page will be cancelled on review and redirected to the main Band Maid page. I don't think she's established enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think there is enough evidence of her notability outside of Band-Maid, especially since there are only a few Cluppo songs so far. For now there is no problem discussing Cluppo developments in the Band-Maid article, probably in a new section about side projects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Peace & Love/Flapping Wings" charted at #19 on Billboard Japan's Top Singles Sales chart. [1] yawaraey (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@GimmeChoco44: @Doomsdayer520: @Yawaraey: Thank you for your opinions so much! By the way, I've watched Kobato on Japanese variety shows at home because I live in Japan. For example, this program (but she was a guest appearance). Isn't her guest appearance on variety shows a worthy reason to create her article? --Hatto0467 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

On behalf of GimmeChoco, they and I are simply advising that it may not be worth doing the work for a new article just to have it rejected during the "draft" stage, or deleted after it goes live. What matters most are the notability rules at WP:NMUSICBIO, and while arguments could be made that Miku passes those, other people are likely to argue otherwise. See also WP:TOOSOON, which says there is no rush to create an article on something that is new, which is the case for Miku's solo career. There are also different notability requirements between the Japanese and English Wikipedia's. If you would like to add to knowledge of Cluppo and Miku's other activities here, I still think the best place for that is a new section at the Band-Maid article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"There are also different notability requirements between the Japanese and English Wikipedia" -- exactly. You'll find the English Wikipedia is much stricter. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

But doesn't charting make her notable? Is the Billboard Japan Singles Sales chart good enough for notability or does she need to chart on Oricon or the Hot 100? Also, I would just make a draft for Kobato's page on documents, I have done it when I completely rewrote certain pages. yawaraey (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See the language at WP:NMUSICBIO, which uses the important phrase "may be notable", which is also found in most other notability guidelines. The charting single may make her notable, but other editors are likely to argue that it's just one minor achievement while she has very little of everything else that is required in the notability guidelines (outside of Band-Maid that is). Once again, I see no need to rush this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to rush. When she has a few more charting releases and some notable coverage in English, that would be the time to separate the info into a separate article. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@GimmeChoco44: @Doomsdayer520: @Yawaraey: Thank you for your advices! I decided not to create her article this time. I certainly don't think there's any need to rush to create her article. However, there may come a time in the future when I or someone else will create her article. Please help her article editing if it's created. --Hatto0467 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

About the upcoming releases

I described the album in Band-Maid article in November 2020 before "Unseen World" album was released in January 2021. However, that description was reverted by another user called "DragonFury". I can't understand why it's reverted. Any upcoming releases by any prominent artists are listed in the articles. For example, Iron Maiden's album "Senjutsu", of which I'm a big fan, will be released in September 2021, and has already been mentioned in their article. Why should Band-Maid's album be reverted, even though Iron Maiden's album is mentioned in their article?--Hatto0467 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're asking about something that happened in November 2020, why is it a problem now? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: I'm sorry for the delay in describing the events of November 2020 until several months later. However, I didn't understand why my post was reverted by User:DragonFury at that time. He also reverted my post that described the "Conqueror" album and the "Different" single before these were released. It's old post but this and this. In addition, he hid a post by an IP user. As mentioned earlier, the upcoming releases by other prominent artists, not just Iron Maiden, are mentioned in the articles. When I looked at list of 2021 albums (July–December), I noticed that Yes and Coldplay also have their studio albums coming out in October 2021. Is it wrong for me to mention in the articles about the upcoming releases? I think it's not wrong. --Hatto0467 (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted those edits because I've had similar edits of mine reverted on other articles, so I was under the impression that albums were only added after they were released. Maybe the policy on that is not ubiquitous across Wikipedia? I did notice that the discography articles for those bands did not include the to be released albums in the count that's featured in the infobox for the article. DragonFury (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@DragonFury: The number of the upcoming releases is certainly not counted in the "Infobox artist discography" but it's listed. For example, in the case of Iron Maiden, the number of their studio albums is listed as "16" in the upper right corner of Iron Maiden discography, but their "17th" studio album "Senjutsu", which will be released in September, is listed under Iron Maiden discography#Studio albums. For this reason, I don't think it's necessary to include the upcoming releases in the Infobox artist discography until these are released, but I think it's no problem to include these in the studio albums and singles list. --Hatto0467 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the source of confusion is that there is usually no individual article for an album until after it is released, unless it gets a lot of significant news coverage before it is released, which tends to only happen for really famous bands. See WP:HAMMER. For the less famous, a reliable announcement of a band's upcoming album can be mentioned at their article with proper footnotes, and you just have to be patient until the time comes to create a whole new article for the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My point isn't that it should be included in the infobox count, it's that it's not clear what can be added to an article prior to an album's release. It's not in the count, and as per DoomsDayer520; a separate article is usually not created prior to the release date, but it is included in the main text of the band's article. And for some artists the upcoming release is included in the discography section and article, but for others it's not (since my edits on a few of those were reverted). Perhaps there is a WikiProject page somewhere were we can get some outside input on this? DragonFury (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the "rule" here is that you don't count things that do not yet exist as items that people can possess. An album that is not yet released may have solid evidence that it will exist but until then it is not an item to be counted. For some bands there have been problems with that infobox count becoming inaccurate because editors insist on counting legendary lost albums or rumored upcoming albums. To discuss the merits of all this, consider the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Album charts

I have been meaning to add the US Billboard Heateekers chart to the Studio albums section of this page, since Conqueror charted at #19 on there, or maybe the US Billboard World Albums chart, since Conqueror charted at #11 on there, especially since Babymetal have that one on their discography page, but Billboard's current website won't let you see past the first three chart entries unless you pay for it. Should I add them anyway? yawaraey (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you saw those chart positions in Billboard itself, or different sources that talked about the Billboard charts, that should serve as confirmation. See also this discussion: [2], while you could find more help with a new question on that same Talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I added them with your advice. yawaraey (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph needs improvement

The introductory paragraph needs improvement, as other than the first two short sentences, the remainder of the paragraph discusses their record labels exclusively and offers the reader no general information about the band as an introductory paragraph should do. I believe the record label information should move to a separate section in the body and be replaced by general summary information on the band. Here is the introductory paragraph as written currently:

"Band-Maid (stylized as BAND-MAID® until March 2016) is a Japanese rock band formed in 2013. The band combines a rock sound with a maid image modeled on Japanese maid cafés.[9] Originally signed to Gump Records (an imprint of the Platinum Passport artist management and talent agency), they switched to major label Nippon Crown's sub-label Crown Stones in 2016 and later moved to new sub-label Revolver Records in 2019. The band's albums have been released internationally through JPU Records since 2016. In late 2020, the band left Revolver Records and signed with Pony Canyon.[10]"

I need to do some work on what would be the better, exact, replacement for the record label information and the sourcing for that information, however I believe a few ideas for addition are: 1 - A quick summary of their formation as detailed in the 'Early Years' section of the page [<Early_years> ]. Something along the lines of: "The band consists of five female members who came together in 2013 with the assistance of founder Miku Kabato and Saiki Atsumi's artist management company". I need the source for this information before including it. 2 - A quick summary of the members. Something along the lines of: "Along with Lead vocalist Atsumi & rhythm guitarist & vocalist Kabato, the band includes lead guitarist Kanami Tono, Percussionist Akane Hirose and bassist Misa (no surname given)". 3 - A summary statement of the record label changes but not the details. Something along the lines of: "The band has been contracted with several record labels and is currently with Pony Canyon". 4 - A summary of their discography: "The band has released 7 albums and several single or smaller releases". No need to differentiate between "mini" or "EP" or "full album" in the introductory paragraph, that is covered in detail in the body. 5 - A summary of "Band-Maiko": "The band has a release as an "alter-ego" band know as "Band-Maiko" styled as a group of "Maikos"". 6 - A summary of their touring and performance: "The band has toured overseas in Europe, the United States and Asia". Please provide your thoughts and input as the page definitely needs to change in the very near future. It has remained in this poor format for at least a year and is overdue for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobespirit2112 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with pointing out that they're women. You can tell that from their names. It would be like calling them an all-female Japanese rock band. No one would call a band that was all men an all-male band. yawaraey (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

For that particular matter, peruse the "Regarding image" thread above. If you choose to take the plunge, good luck because you're gonna need it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the use of "her" and "she" in appropriate places, or them being in the All-Female Bands category, but I don't think it should say that they are an all-female band anywhere in the actual article, or that it should say anything along the lines of the band consisting of five female members. yawaraey (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraph was incorrectly focused on their record company history, but the proposed solution above goes way too far. I just fixed the lead myself so it reflects those seen in articles about other bands of Band-Maid's stature, and moved the record company signings to the appropriate places in the main body of the article. Otherwise, the proposal above would largely make the lead worse. Also known as the opening or introduction, the lead should be short and sweet, written strategically to encourage readers to continue into the rest of the article. See WP:MOSLEAD. Some details that are currently missing from the article, like Saiki Atsumi's artist management company, can be added to the main body just like any other detail of interest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the responses and the change that has been made. Perhaps we can discuss potential further changes, but, on the whole, I'm glad to see that the old introductory paragraph has finally been changed to something more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and is a better summary of pertinent information rather than a lengthy discussion of the record company changes. Thanks for taking the lead and making it happen, well done. Bobespirit2112 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe we should update the Introductory Paragraph now to reflect that their most recent release is the "Unleash" EP. I would recommend we leave the reference to Unseen World full-length album so that the final sentence would be something like ["They are currently signed to Pony Canyon,[10], their most recent full-length album Unseen World was released in 2021 and their most recent release is the EP "Unleash".]Bobespirit2112 (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Claims in the lead should summarize sourced statements in the body

A dispute over the ® symbol exists and needs resolution. Omnipaedista removed the symbol saying "not part of the name", then Doomsdayer520 reverted that removal saying "actually it was part of the name, at least as a visual gimmick". There is no explanation or apparent sourcing for this claim in the article and as such needs fixing, one way or the other. Please see applicable guidance on MOS:LEAD. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I reverted that first edit because the person who removed the ® symbol did not give a valid reason for removing it. And then after I was accused of contributing to a "dispute" (it isn't one), I did what both of the other people here should have done in the first place: I added the "citation needed" tag at the point in question. Now there is an incentive for someone to find a reliable source. I am actually in favor of removing that whole "until 2016" name altogether, but it is indeed part of the band's history for those who know about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Omnipaedista stated "not part of the name" as their reason for their edit and from what you've just written I gather you agree with that removal, so what the hell are you talking about? Also, cut the "accused of contributing to a 'dispute'" crap; the content is evidently disputed, no accusations happened and scare quotes aren't helpful. You are responsible for the content added by reversion of a removal; this is policy (and common sense) and are now saying you think it should be removed and have tagged it as needing citation? What you're doing is straightforwardly disruptive; this dispute now appears to be more about WP:OWNERSHIP than building an encyclopedia. The {{citation needed}} in this case is entirely for show and is not a solution or call for one. The dispute needs real resolution by real action. Either the statements get sources and proper coverage in the article body or they will be removed. I will remind you that this article is a biography of living people and as such there is no wiggle room for error. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Using words like "hell" and "crap" is not a strategy for an effective expert or authority figure. On the matter of "disruptive" editing, note how nobody here thinks this is a "dispute" except you. In your numerous policy links, you miraculously forgot WP:CIVIL, WP:DISENGAGE, and WP:CONSENSUS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discography

I recently noticed that a Portuguese article, Discografia de Band-Maid, has been created. If that is the case, should we also split the discography section into "Band-Maid discography" in the English Wikipedia as well? What do you think? --Hatto (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it's taking up rather a lot of screen real estate at the moment for somewhat limited value. DragonFury (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As the years go by, a band can pile up so many albums and videos that a Discography article is warranted. That is now the case for Band-Maid. It turns out that someone already completed a completely unnecessary redirect here: [3]. I am going to start working on it soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Done! See the new Band-Maid discography. I pretty much did a giant copy/paste so the article could use a few tweaks if anyone would like to contribute. Note the requirements for this type of article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Genres and proper references

So we have a minor edit war going about the addition of kawaii metal as a genre for the band. @Gabardinefling added it originally, I initially reverted it on the basis of it being an unreliable source/reference, @Yawaraey did another reversion on basis that the article doesn't explicitly calls Band-Maid kawaii metal. I'll let Yawaraey explain that point themselves if they feel like it, I'll stick to my opinion here.

My opinion is simple: Dead Rethoric is not a reliable source. Here's a simple comparison; the genre "heavy metal" is supported by two sources; Loudersound/Metal Hammer and Consequence. I know of the former, haven't heard of the latter, but on a very base level I can look at their audience; Metal Hammer has 655k followers on Twitter, Consequence has 272k followers. Dead Rethoric has less than 1,000 followers. That doesn't seem like a professional outlet to me, but rather a fan written website. I would not consider that a reliable source in the slightest.DragonFury (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To start with, infoboxes should summarize key points of the article body, so anything in there should be established and sourced (where required) in the article body. With consideration of WP:STATUSQUO let's not rush to fix that yet. The article should be a summary of what quality sources have to say on the subject, with outlying views being appropriately clarified as such if included at all. Therefore, with the infobox being a summary of the article as a summary of authoritative sources, as DragonFury states above, the single outlying source should not be used to support that claim in the infobox. i.e. if Band-Maid is not commonly considered to be a kawaii metal band, or they are but it's not important enough to be included as article content, we should not make that statement in the infobox. Also inline with DragonFury, the source (deadrhetoric.com) could only be considered borderline reliable at best, but apparently in no way authoritative. Although its about us page lists staff writers, there is no explicit mention of editorial oversight, and the generic terms and conditions (including clauses regarding "content submissions", albeit to "forums", which is a massive red flag with regard to WP:USERGENERATED) is not confidence inducing. The publication does not appear to be considered an authority by other sources (consider the difference between simply googling "Rolling Stone magazine" and "Dead Rhetoric magazine"), and with no explicit apparent editorial oversight, the staff writer responsible for the source may as well be a blogger, for the weight they carry through it. Some further reading about "Founder/Owner" (of deadrhetoric.com) David E. Gehlke. Note: our list of kawaii metal musical groups includes Band-Maid since Gabardinefling recently added them citing the same source, so that might also need eyes on. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A lengthy analysis of whether a source is reliable may not be necessary here. See Wikipedia:Genre warrior, which is an essay and not a formal WP policy, but there should be no surprise that this happens a lot. For this particular dispute, just because one person called Band-Maid "kawaii metal", that does not make this piece of info so crucial that it needs to be in the infobox as some sort of official analytical conclusion on what they sound like. This is an encyclopedia that is meant to be informative for the reader. See also WP's definition of significant coverage. There could be a New York Times article listing what John Lennon had for breakfast that day because the interviewer happened to ask, but that does not mean that an encyclopedia needs to tell all readers forever that John Lennon enjoyed some pancakes on July 9, 1973 as if it's informative just because some journalist said it. (That's my polite discussion, but what I really mean is "some guy with a webzine said what he thinks Band-Maid sounds like... who cares?") ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not deadrhetoric.com is a reliable source in general, this particular article is clearly a poorly compiled list created for clicks. It doesn't explain what kawaii metal is or what these acts supposedly have in common, but instead seems to imply that any Japanese band (with at least one female member) who defy "genre conventions[...] in presentation, sound, or both" qualifies. That extremely vague description is not the definition of the term on Wikipedia. That means it is one article giving a very "outlying view" on many of the bands it lists. Seems to me we already have at least four different editors here who agree that the article is trash and shouldn't be used. Xfansd (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for this single, frankly crappy source and the associated claim would have to argue against a swathe of content policies and guidelines, and it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. I think we have all the consensus we need. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Band-Maid's name has already been removed from List of kawaii metal musical groups, but the names Broken By The Scream, Fate Gear, Hanabie., Lovebites and Trident still remain in List of kawaii metal musical groups, along with deadrhetoric.com articles. Should we remove these group names from List of kawaii metal musical groups as well? --Hatto (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I started a thread on that article's talk page with my view. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXREF

Infoboxes should act to summarize key points, agreed by implied consensus over each box's development, of article content. Although not strictly required, it would be ideal if the genre and label info was covered in content prose, referenced as appropriate inline. This not only makes the infobox cleaner to read, but might also help disuade this kind of flippant editing; quality prose takes some real effort and is subject to less creep. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)