Wikipedia

Talk:Momoiro Clover Z/Archive 1

< Talk:Momoiro Clover Z
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Hijiri88 in topic So............................
Archive 1

Mirai Bowl

Mirai Bowl is used as the ending for the Winter 2011 Anime Dragon Crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.36.6 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2011‎

Pink or peach-colored

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Shouldn't ももいろ be translated as peach-colored (or just peach) instead of pink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.81.152 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Japanese delicate sense of colors shows that "momoiro" is different from "pink". Furthermore, "pink" represents erotogenic image in Japan. --Anosola (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. "Momoiro" is a natural Japanese word, "pink" is a natural English word. It is incorrect to translate a simple Japanese word with something that doesn't sound natural in English. What's next? Translating "chairo" as "tea-colored", "haiiro" as "color of ashes", "daidaiiro" as "color of unpicked fruit"? Also, the group's logo at http://www.momoclo.net/ and the clover in it are perfectly pink, and not peach-colored. And read the Wikipedia article about the color peach, cause your "delicate sense of color" (^_^) may not agree it is the same color as "momoiro" in Japanese. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Okey. I didn't know that "peach" is derived from the color of its flesh while momoiro is derived from the surfice color. Actually, "pink" is much more similar to "momoiro" though there is a slight difference. (As for Japanese language, "momoiro" is intermediate between "pink" and "red".) Then I wish there is a more suitable English expression that reflects our delicate sense of color. Let me know if you have a good idea.--Anosola (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
{{:tl:Shades of pink}} might be useful for discussion. As for "memoir", we should use whatever the English-language reliable sources use for the word's translation. LadyofShalott 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese article "Momoiro" uses the value of #F58F98 to illustrate the color. I've entered it on Yandex (the most popular Russian search portal) and it identifies #F58F98 as "Pale red-violet" (#DB7093). The closest colors to "Pale red-violet" in its classification are "Dark pink" (#E75480) and "Pale chestnut" (#DDADAF). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Not the "closest" colors, just the colors the website lists next to it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My paper dictionaries say:

  • Sanseido's New Concise Japanese-English Dictionary: "momoiro 桃色 pink; rose color."
  • Sanseido Concise Japanese-Russian Dictionary: "ももいろ [桃色] розовый цвет." (It means "pink color".)
  • Lavrentiev. Pocket Japanese-Russian Dictionary (和露小辞書): "桃色 светло-розовый цвет." (It means "light pink color".)
  • Neverova, etc. Japanese-Russian Kanji Dictionary (和露漢字小辞書): "桃色 momoiro розовый, персиковый цвет". (It means "pink, peach color".)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it obviously makes a credible claim of notability. The user making this request seems to misunderstand the rules of CSD... perhaps AfD, if deemed necessary, is a better option. --Salvidrim! 09:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

At the time when you wrote it, the speedy deletion had been already declined. But because of the way Wikipedia works, unlogged users still were shown the old revision with the speedy deletion notice. I've just noticed it and purged the article. (The article was like that for a whole hour.) ---Moscow Connection (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of the article (March 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've started expanding the article. I need to do it very fast, so please don't tag anything with citation requests. If I start to look for sources now, I won't be able to think. The best way is to write it out of my head, using a good long article in Yomiuri Shimbun + the Japanese Wikipedia + the official site + what I wrote in the Russian Wikipedia (because these four sources have some sort of continiuos narrative). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The main objective at the moment is to qualify for the DYK section. I don't have a hook yet, so suggestions are welcomed! --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Removal of bad quality image

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
 
Anime Expo 2012 live concert

Recently, the user Moscowconnection don't want to replace the main picture. From december 2012, in Wikimedia Commons exists a better quality and more recently photo of the group. The other picture (uploaded by Moscowconnection from a 2011 concert) is too blurry and the faces of Reni (purple) and Momoka (green) doesn't seen clearly. I don't understand why don't permit the upload of a more recent and non-blurry image. --Taichi (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The image currently used
    1. It is much better than any other on Commons. It shows the band's character and their costumes. The group is not like other groups and the picture demonstrates it. The first two photos in the article are very interesting, unusual, and encourage the reader to find out more about the group.
    2. It was used in the Japanese Wikinews on April 17, which may show that they thought it was the best available.
  • The image you are proposing
    1. It is badly framed for the purpose of an infobox. It focuses on the stage lighting.
    2. It is too dark.
    3. The colors are worse.
    4. It is much worse quality in the thumbnail size.
    5. Their faces look too wide and unnatural, maybe due to the use of a wide-angle lens, maybe due to the angle from which the photo was taken. They are probably dark and unnatural due to the back/top stage lighting.
      By the way, all the photos from that Japan Expo 2012 photoset were pulled out from the individual member articles in the Japanese Wikipedia. It was briefly discussed, and it was agreed that the photos were bad. I left them in the English Wikipedia articles simply because I think that, in the case of the English Wiki, any picture is better than no picture.
    6. It is much less informative. You can't really see either their faces or the costumes on it.
    7. They don't sing in the photo. You can't understand they are a musical group from looking on it. From the point of view of a person who has found him/herself on this page accidentally, the people on this photo can be anyone — country dancers, Eastern European dancers, whoever. Therefore, it is useless for the purpose of making the group recognizable and distinctive from everything else.
    8. It is similar to so many band photos in which some people are standing. As a regular reader of articles about girl groups and boy bands in the English Wikipedia, I think the image will look boring in the infobox and no one will look at it.
    9. The article already has a similar image from Japan Expo 2012. (It is "Japan Expo", not "Anime Expo".) There are many different photos to show many different images of the group in the article now. When choosing the infobox picture, other pictures must be taken into consideration too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Replying the point #5, the actual picture is more unnatural, because the Reni's face is severely blurred. And the Momoka face isn't visible. If you really want show the MomoClo members, the actual picture doesn't fit with that purpose. Then, the point #6 also doesn't fulfill. --Taichi (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't see their faces in the thumbnail size anyway. But you can see what they are like on stage and their most famous costumes. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 
Sorry, but your answer doesn't justify about the blurriest face of Reni. I asked you, this blurry face is the true face of Reni? You mentioned about that your uploaded image is "informative". You said as justification that your picture "shows the band's character", but I replied about the quality of your picture that clearly doesn't illustrate the band. And also will be create a conflict to Momoclo fans, because the Reni's face is comparable to Ecce Mono, for example. --Taichi (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I resized the image you posted from 400px to the same size you used for the other one. You can't see their faces in it anyway. It clearly looks better and more interesting than the one you are proposing. Also, their costumes somehow don't look ironed in your picture. They look perfect in mine. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with Moscowconnection. Momoclo fans like Reni's intense dance, so the current picture reflects her performance. --Anosola (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The Anosola's comment isn't informative about the pertinence and encylopedic nature of the image. And Moscow, if I want to see the members faces, your uploaded image doesn't fulfill this point. And I asked a question about the true face of Reni. And please, the size of image doesn't resolve about the blurry. PD: Any Wikipedia has a proper set of rules, so I appreciated to Anosola to don't change the image in Spanish Wikipedia, because the es.wikipedia don't have relationship about English nor Japanese Wikipedia rules. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The link to "The pertinence and encylopedic nature" is irrelevant.
  • I had replied to you twice about Reni's face: "You can't see their faces in the thumbnail".
  • I repeat that the current image is the best.
  • "Any Wikipedia has a proper set of rules". What exactly Spanish Wikipedia rules Anosola violated? The Spanish Wikipedia is also free for anyone to edit. I can't see why you think Anosola's edit was inappropriate. The image used in the infobox was used in the Spanish Wikipedia too, and you are the one who changed it. I didn't revert you back then simply because I don't like fighting. But it reminds me that I should revert you if I truly believe something is best for Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the image in the Spanish Wikipedia back. You didn't even change the image description to correspond with the photo you placed in the infobox. Japan Expo 2012 was not held in August 2011. But surely, any discussions about the image in the Spanish article (if they are needed) should take place in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Please limit discussion here to the English Wikipedia article. Discussions about the Spanish article belong on the Spanish Wikipedia article talk page (similar for Japanese, Russian, or any other language you care to argue about). LadyofShalott 01:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Unless the endorsement of a product/television series is especially significant. (Tie-in with major single (Dragon Crisis and Mirai Bowl for example) / first manoeuvre into field (Akumuchan and Tamai's voice acting debut) / turning point (Nissan Stadium Concert). I do not think we should include all side-projects such as Sailor Moon, bentou boxes, formula one racers, gum drops, Soy icecream or Walking With Dinosaurs that Momoiro Clover Z participate is. Sailor Moon's return is not even going to be nationally broadcast, it is not significant to Momoiro Clover Z's history or career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.198.36 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There's no reason to delete that. We should expand the page instead. (And I'm sure many people come here because they've heard about the upcoming Sailor Moon series. They can see that the information is confirmed here in this article. Insidently, your IP mostly edits Salor Moon-related pages too.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That is the Sailor Moon fandom's wish, The Sailor Moon anime is not significant to their career, there is little to no media attention regarding this information, the fact that Sailor Moon fans want to see Sailor Moon anime is irrelevant, of course they do but this is Momoiro Clover Z. This is about Momoiro Clover Z and should outline significant things only to them, they endorse something different every other week, it will be a nightmare to include it all. Walking with Dinosaurs, Nascar Racing, EMA Awards, Ozzfest and Animelo are all missing from this, that's all in the last few months as well. All much more significant than a small commemorative anime for something 20 years old. This Sailor Moon information when is no longer especially relevant to Momoiro Clover Z should be on Sailor Moon's page, not here. "being released worldwide exclusively by Nico Nico Douga in the Winter of 2013." Is also completely irrelevant to this idol group as well. Double J was another online anime they endorsed. That too is missing from the article. It is misleading to include something so minor for the whim of a small group of people. I do like Sailor Moon very much and am happy to see it return, but in the scheme of this article. It is not relevant. Might I add Momoiro Clover Z's Japanese wikipedia article which is incredibly comprehensive including many endorsement products, leaves out Sailor Moon.

I think I've just guessed what was the problem. You probably saw a video of them performing "Moonlight Densetsu" at Sailor Moon -La Reconquista- on YouTube and thought they will cover the song for the new Sailor Moon series. But no one knows what song it is going to be. In July of 2012 Momoiro Clover Z simply announced that they would perform the opening for the upcoming Sailor Moon anime. That's all. They keep everything else a secret. The news didn't say what song it was going to be. Read the section called "Upcoming Series Reboot" here at the Sailor Moon Wikia for a clear explanation. As you can see, even if the series is going to be a remake (i.e. going to start with the very beginning) and feature the same title song, it's still important. The original news article from July 2012 is here.
And by the way, I think the producers of the series are planning to stream it worldwide on the Internet. Surely, it's highly unlikely that we are living in a new digital era already and there's going to be an English-language version released simultaneously and people all over the world will be able to pay a couple of dollars to watch a new episode as soon as it is released. But who knows... --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with your edit. You removed unnecessary details. But maybe you or someone else who reads this can add a clear explanaition saying when the announcement was made and what it said exactly and maybe state clearly that the announcement didn't say what song would be the title song. We need to give people the info they need. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not think that please do not assume. I just do not think Sailor Moon is as relevant to Momoiro Clover Z as people want to think it is. My point is that this information is more about Sailor Moon, it is not really about Momoiro Clover Z and should be featured on the Sailor Moon article. As I said before, they endorse a wide variety of products and brand names, Sailor Moon does not hold as much significance as people in the Sailor Moon Community would like to think. It is simply a nostalgic series many middle-aged ladies remember they used to watch. As Momoiro Clover Z has had a rearrangement of Moonlight Densetsu maed especially for them, it is sure to be included at some point. But as I said before this information is NOT very relevant to this page, it is about Sailor Moon and people being excited about this. While this page is about Momoiro Clover Z not Sailor Moon. It must include only product endorsement that is highly relevant because there's far too much to include. If people look for Sailor Moon information they should search for Sailor Moon. 122.60.198.36 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the page is all right now as it only includes information pertaining to the page's title. Any additionally information regarding Sailor Moon should be put on the Sailor Moon page.122.60.198.36 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

moscow connection

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

seems to have too much of a vested interest in editing this page (& others?)... fan club president/hopeful or?... i know of no other musician whose Discography section is placed before their History section. i'll continue watching in my spare time. not that i care at all, but: thats exactly what makes me a better contributor to pages like this: NEUTRAL. all of mc's edits here are decidedly promotional fan-ish drool. Japanglish (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Member list

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

There is absolutely no reason to present this information in a bulky table when prose conveys the information just as well. It makes this look like a fan page rather than an encyclopedic article.

Also, it is pointless to provide the kanji names of these girls when they have their own articles where that information is located.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I can agree to remove the kanji names for the 6 members in the table cause they have their own articles. (Even if it is agreed on, the kanji for Yukina Kashiwa should stay for consistency.) But the table looks much better and is much more visually accessible than your text version. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And please don't make any changes, the discussion has just begun. I haven't formally agreed to anything, I'm just discussing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Why should it remain for consistency? If they all have their own pages that's where their Japanese names should be listed. And you cannot say I can't make changes when you and I are the only two interested in this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the table looks much better than text (cf. Member lists of V6 (band), Sexy Zone etc.) And I think kanji is really important information, so it shouldn't be deleted even if there are own articles. --Anosola (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I will change it back then. The table looks nicer with than without. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. If these people have their own articles where the Japanese text is located, then there is no reason to duplicate it on this page, and if it is duplicated, then it is imperative that the Japanese order of the name be included as well. I'm removing the kanji again. And there's no need for this to be any more legible on a mobile browser than it is on a standard one. In mobile browsers, tables can be slid around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with both of you (you and Anosola). You win. I don't mind the kanji deleted. (But if Anosola insists, he still has the right to put it back.)
By the way, you can implement some of Japanglish's suggestions (see below) or just rewrite the article a little bit yourself if you don't like it. I know the article is badly written and any type of change can only improve it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you put the widths and nowraps back? The table adjusted nicely without them. I hate to slid things around. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: It still adjusts nicely. Maybe it was nowraps that spoiled everything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Where is the rule that says that "it is imperative that the Japanese order of the name be included as well"?. I think it's redundant. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:MOS-JA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

list of Things-To-Do

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Ryulong: you have every right to make any edit you please as long as you provide valid reasoning in the edit summary &/or sources and you probably already know that; no need for moscow's seal of approval. Thanks for moving the History section up; i'd done the same for Discography recently and would've done so with History any minute now had you not beat me to it…

moscowconnection: given the embarrassing state this "article" is in, you have no right to be so heavy handed in reverting other contributors edits… i'm not attacking you, but you open yourself up for singling-out here; its very obvious you seem to reckon this your territory! that said… heres a new years list of things-to-do here in momo-land, and i'm officially announcing upcoming attention to these things…

this article reads like a PRESS RELEASE, blatant Fan Page &/or Band Resume, & if something isn't done soon to correct that, i'll officially TAG it as such & i'd be in-the-right by doing so; then maybe contributors will finally tend to things (if we're lucky) which are already so messy/sloppy/biased/over-blown/poorly-written/childish. many specifics listed in the article are unwarranted & better left to the subject's own fan-pages/blogs/other sites which can be linked in the "Exterior" section; these entities have plenty of such coverage of their own, making it UNnecessary to bore visitors with minutiae here at wikipedia (especially for a Japanese subject with comparably small followings in the English-speaking world; even WikiProject Japan at the top of this page rates the article as Start-Class quality & Low-Importance!).

  • Intro paragraphs: ONE suffices here; no need to separate into two paragraphs if thats all that sums up the subject. also: the final two sentences of that second paragraph are repetitive; someone please find a way to combine, OR delete one.

while i'm at it: why are so many sentences separated into paragraphs of their own anyway? it hints at three particular problems, illustrated using the same format here:

Additions randomly inserted, showing no genuine editorial consideration, leading to:

Biased additions by contributors with some relation to the subject, taking advantage of the fact that such additions receive little editorial/peer review.

Unnecessary visual "lengthening" of what can otherwise be consolidated.

to be clear about this wikipedia subject, first of all: documenting this group as one would document a serious recording artist is already a touchy matter and must be kept toned-down & kept in context: "…works are quite complex…" compared to what, tv commercial jingles?? anyone with any actual knowledge of how these entities function in Japan would never seriously categorize or document this as a music group in the way they are fawned-over here (unless as some kind of "Spinal Tap"-ish mockumentary?); this so-called musical group is nothing more than one of many competing or companion Corporate Constructs, having much more to do with marketing than music; these girls' interest in "music" is not much more than having auditioned for a job consisting of singing & dancing & smiling for the cameras in service of selling more Pocky & more Calpis & calendars/goods of their production company's creation — merely a better career alternative in Japan than that of life as an OL… thats the truth no matter how talented any unsuspecting viewer/listener may otherwise personally be misguided into thinking these gals may be; any other 5 girls under the same direction will achieve the same results. back to the specifs…

  • "intentionally ridiculous hyperactive J-pop numbers": i've watched this sentence removed by other contributors at least twice in the past couple months (maybe more if i track back farther) only to be reverted by an unnecessarily protective moscowconnection… listen here: ALL WERE CORRECT in deleting… although that terminology may fit ones own blog description, its simply OUT OF PLACE in encyclopedic context here: either find another way to word it or LEAVE IT OUT… at the very least, you're assuming this group is somehow proud to be recognized as "ridiculous" (even if it IS something they're proud of, then it should be kept out until some more reliable description of it can be provided) & at worst it just makes the author/contributor seem inept…
  • lip-synching: saying "does not…" is blatantly misleading; they sometimes obviously DO lip-synch, i've witnessed it myself… it also implies that they are the ONLY ones who don't lip-synch, which is simply untrue… please re-word that entry to reflect reality: these gals are not the miracle-born all-perfect daughters of some almighty god, though their producers would surely like you to believe they are…
  • repetition/stretching sources: "Ian Martin from The Japan Times…" directly quoted in one sentence, then later randomly citing "a music critic from The Japan Times", which also happens to be: Ian Martin… now, fer-sher, there's nothing wrong with mining a source, BUT: when the source is obviously mentioning the subject only in-passing by a writer whose job description is to be nice, there are limits to how much of a spin one should assume to be permissible here…

its all about CONTEXT, and contributors here are blatantly abusing whats available to make these gals seem like prodigies; any ideas the girls themselves might contribute are like "how'bout if we chug like choo-choo-trains here then jump in the air!" as they're fed cake and lollipops by their producers; i like (some) J-pop too, but: its J-pop, friends, not rocket science… speaking of which:

the inclusion of the Einstein-like weight-watching calculus is some kinda mis-interpretation of "encyclopedic content" which has no place here; i doubt even the most manic fan would care about such disposable information &, to paraphrase an already poor paraphrase, it seems like "intentionally ridiculous hyperactive" mumbo-jumbo meant to add some kind of —ahem— weight to this light-weight subject…

back to my point: among misrepresentation & misuse of source material to validate musical content is the quote from the "Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry" as the cited source — to describe musical style? the economy & trade ministry?? — as opposed to, say, an actual music magazine or anything other than the kind of politically correct or polite nods of such an unrelated entity? that Ministry source could as easily be spun to cite this group as the Corporate Construct i've described earlier, shall i go ahead and do that?… its evidence that other fluff may also be questionably cited (& i already caught moscowconnection during this article's DYK nomination citing japanese sources with incomplete knowledge or understanding of the Japanese language being cited)…

learn: negative critique is frowned upon in Japanese media — its bad for business, unlike in the US — & generally gets glossed-over by powers-that-be (if published at all; in keeping with Japan's whole ignorant bliss culture) which is why sources for the kinds of points i'm making here are hard to come by, or i'd already be sprinkling articles like these with them.

  • there is absolutely no reason to cite actual DAYS in the prose (of CD releases, concerts, etc; first of all, CD-release specs are already noted in the abundant charts)…

On July 10, 2012, the group had their hair done.

On September 22, 2012, Kuchiko caught a cold.

On January 8, 2013, Muumuu-chan was sad.

…simplifying dates in the prose will suffice; read: wikipedia-is-not-a-list-of-everything!… and again: stop listing every sentence as its own paragraph! any 15 year old with no attention span to actually READ here can go to the groups official fan pages for all the facts they just can't live without, & written in big, pink letters too!

  • "In Japan, 'Z' is a symbol of evolution"… please DELETE this overtly mis-used statement OR quickly provide some higher, more readily confirmable source for such a seemingly authoritative fact OR i will delete it myself if it is not tended to! another of many instances in which the article is mis-representing statements made in the source material; paraphrasing unconfirmed authoratative statements is also simply shoddy editing and a bad habit to fall into.

the whole article is like a C-minus book report haphazardly compiled by someone who failed basic writing courses, if they ever had any, but thats a whole nuther critique… meanwhile, i'm ready to act here myself; theres a lot to tend to at this free momoclo website you've got going here thanks to wikipedia, and i'm gonna make it a pet project to see this gets cleaned up; i'll be watching… meanwhile 新年明けましておめでとう〜 Japanglish (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your suggestions! I can't start rewriting everything right now cause I am a bit frustrated with Wikipedia and was just planning to create more bad articles quickly. And I've been actually trying to forget about Wikipedia and concentrate on other things. I know I should take this rare opportunity cause you are obviously a good writer and you are proposing your help. I will try in a few days, okay? By the way, you can rewrite the article, I won't mind. But if you want to see me suffer while revising it according to your suggestions myself, then I will finish with other stuff and try...
    Could you also look at the article about Kanako Momota? I hope I won't regret asking you, but the last time you actually helped with the article and the DYK hook a lot. The Kanako article is terrible, it is the worst. (But it will pass a DYK review nevertheless.) Could you help with it a little bit too? But don't laugh too much when reading. What can I do if I don't have access to any Japanese magazines and all I can find online is random Natalie articles? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Japanglish. I'm afraid I can only write simple English so I'll write in both English and Japanese to prevent misunderstandings.

As for "intentionally ridiculous hyperactive J-pop numbers" and lip-synching, the current article seems to have no problem from a viewpoint of Japanese people. I recommend you read Japanese music magazines or watch Japanese music programs much more. You could find out the real characteristics of Momoclo when you compare with other idols carefully.

現行の記事において、"intentionally ridiculous hyperactive J-pop numbers"という表現や、所謂「生歌」に関する記述は妥当なものであると考えられます。他のアイドルとの差異を捉えた場合に、これらがももクロの特徴を形成していることは明白です。--Anosola (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's out fault cause we need to explain everything more clearly and at a greater depth. By the way, could you try to find some source about the letter Z? Maybe some new source has appeared since last spring. As for lip-synching, when I deleted the word "never" from the DYK hook last year, I did have in mind that there could be some TV shows where they had to lip-synch. Also, I now have seen on YouTube a song or two from their more recent giant stage concerts, in which (in the one or two excerpts I saw) during the choruses they interacted with the audience and didn't look like actually singing. I thought it would look much better if for such occasions they used live backing vocalists instead of pre-recorded parts. But when talking about lip-synching, Japanglish needs to keep in mind that Japanese concert DVDs are very heavily edited, so what we hear may not be what the audience heard. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

missing the point

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

dear moscowconnection & anosola: you either can't read whats been written above, or are misunderstanding the meaning… &/OR, you two are obviously here to edit in a manner which suits the subject or its followers… wikipedia exists to serve neither! just-the-facts here please, and those of genuine interest to the casual searcher~ i'm gonna start my DIRECT personal involvement at this article with a few serious edits; don't mean to hurt any feelings but: please do not attempt to revert my edits: i am in the right with every one of these initial edits, and they should remain until tended to in a NEUTRAL manner!... best, Japanglish (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood our intentions (mine, at least). I don't try to intentionally present the subject in some particular manner. I'm not here "to do" something. I just wrote what I knew and what I could find sources for. The article is rather random. You are free to improve it.
In Ryulong's case, he just wanted to remove the table and I opposed. You are improving the text. Yours is a completely different level of involvement. I appreciate that you invest your time on making this a decent article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You want the shit to look pretty when that's not what Wikipedia is for. Leave that for fansites.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

no time to attend to anything myself until into next week, but there's plenty listed above for others to consider & act upon accordingly~ moscow if youll remember correctly part of my initial problem during DYK was the member chart; if my opinion is of any importance here now, i still feel the same and would have to agree with Ryulong... if anything, the BOXing of the info could be sacrificed... i noticed the color swatches were reduced in size; given that, i think they could also be sacrificed; everyone knows what red looks like, everyone knows what green looks like, etc~ honestly, i really can't understand why birthdates are necessary there anyway, nor former member charting... thats fan information available on the subjects own sites! gotta run, and won't be back for several days... どうぞよろしくお願い〜 Japanglish (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do... Because I am afraid that if I insist on leaving the table it may discourage you from working on the article... You see, I could agree to get rid of it if we could somehow list their mottos / catchphrases / self-introductions (I mean, Kanako is "Cinderella of tea plantations", Ayaka is the "idol of Momoclo", etc.) I wanted to list them somehow, but they would not fit in the table... (I hope you won't be shocked by this idea. Or maybe, you could agree to just make the table neater by removing the borders or something).
The info about former members is not available on the official site. I guess it is not part of the official history. Maybe it could be rewritten as text rather than bulleted entries. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • i'll continue where i left off now, but only able to contribute sporadically as time permits...
Moscow: i'll get to the chart too, but remember thats not the only thing that needs work; i've provided a pretty clear outline of problems but i can't (& dont want to) be the only one working on them... survey some other music articles (other than J-pop & other than passing trends) and see how other writers have handled their subjects (keeping in mind that not all of those are perfect either)... you also have to be willing to let go of content; let others add or subtract without being defensive... anyway, i'll help get to everything slowly but surely and welcome anyone else with valid comment or contributions~ (valid!)
Anosola: your above point illustrate one problem with how this article's been approached here: this article isnt here to disseminate the feelings of Japanese fans, nor to further the mostly one-sided views of Japanese media about a Japanese subject (by the way, some of the sources used in the article are blogs of questionable validity)... this is an English encyclopedia entry to provide straight facts for English-speaking researchers/readers, & i'll repeat: those facts must be kept in context; this is a Japanese group with a comparatively small following outside of Japan and that's that; this is Momoclovers, not Mozart... Japanglish (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: thanks for contributing; good job~ i've got a little free time as of this notice, so i7ll also be making whatever simpler edits i can make while im able~ Japanglish (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Member chart: Ryulong thanks for following up my edit; i knew there were possible/probable inaccuracies in previous member details i'm unfamiliar with; simply provided a direction for converting list into prose~ Lets hear some thoughts about the rest of that member chart area!
ME: the whole lot should be turned into simple prose, at which point that info could be moved into the "Lead/Conception" section (where it actually oughta be? but NOT as a chart!)... during DYK i made an edit: chart into prose, which was immediately opposed/reverted by moscow~ there're many ways that member info can be flowed into prose without deleting it altogether, BUT, still: really: are the color swatches very necessary?? again: everyone knows what RED looks like, what GREEN looks like, etc~
on a whim i tried to think of respected groups who went through many personnel changes & checked out The Grateful Dead & Deep Purple; there may be examples of how to deal w/ listing members in prose which would also provide precedent to return member information to earlier in the article; either "Lead" or "Conception" section (happy moscow??)
OTHERWISE: as a "chart" it should stay where it is, down w/the other charts (&/but i'm STILL partial to losing the color swatches & the "boxing" of the information!)
howbout agreeing &/or making a move on that by the endo the week? Japanglish (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Discography section

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

There is absolutely no need to have the discography section include the names of every single and album, their exact release dates, and their charting information on this page when Momoiro Clover Z discography exists as a separate article. It clutters up this page too much. At minimum, all that needs to be on this page are the studio albums and the years that they were released. Singles are out of the question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Some people (like me) seem to like it this way. I would agree to just a simple list, but you removed everything. Albums are less important than singles in this case, by the way. --Moscow Connection (talk)
As per Ryulong's comments above, it should be pretty obvious that we don't need to duplicate the content of Momoiro Clover Z discography in this article. A simple list of album releases is all that is required in this article, as is the norm in other well-written band articles. --DAJF (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like the article to have the list of singles, there are only 10. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a special reason why we need to list the singles here when they are already listed in detail in Momoiro Clover Z discography? I have trawled through a large number of well-developed articles for non-Japanese bands that have separate discography articles, and I have not yet found one that lists the band's singles on the main article. I ask again: is there some special reason why this article should be different? --DAJF (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"Only 10" is a lot of singles. It makes no sense to include all of them. All articles on bands simply have the studio albums and that's perfectly fine for Momoclo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert the section order? Please change it back cause the sections were rearranged without a consensus to do so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The consensus across the project appears to be to have the "History" section first. This can be verified by having a look at well-developed articles on other bands. For starters, have a look at this small random selection: One Direction (a "Good Article"), Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls, ABBA, Atomic Kitten, The Bangles, The Go-Go's... the list is almost endless. --DAJF (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHER is not a valid argument. There is no consensus. If you say that there is a consensus, please point me to where it was reached. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. WP:OTHER is not an argument to be used in deletion debates. It is completely and perfectly valid to point out that a practice exists on tons of other pages and shows implicit acceptance by the community at large.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Moscow Connection, it's good that you raised the point about Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. While that essay primarily applies to deletion debates, as Ryulong mentions above, did you read as far as the "Precedent in usage" section at the very bottom? If you didn't, please do, as it explains how an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may actually provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology in individual articles - precisely the situation that is being discussed about Momoiro Clover Z. If you wish to go against the clearly established community-wide precedent and consensus on section order, you will need to present a convincing argument as to why this article should be treated differently. --DAJF (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. There's nothing that makes Momoclo or AKB48 or any idol group special that requires a different format, other than it being one that you, Moscow Connection, seem to be enforcing across the articles. However, this should be discussed below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Section order

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

On all articles on bands, history goes first. The member list and music style discussion should always go after history. None of this "idol groups are special" nonsense either. Moscow Connection, you should really stop enforcing what you think is right on these articles because it is clear from the failed good article nomination of Momota that you do not know what should go into Wikipedia articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no rule like that. Even if it goes first everywhere, it doesn't have to be the case here if there's no rule approved by the community. Most bands are just bands, they just play music and the most important story about them is how the members met each other. I think we must explain something important in the beginning, you see. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's so important to discuss how the band was formed, then that goes in the history section instead of in a "members" section. Moscow Connection, your arguments here and at AKB48 simply are there because you think it looks better. Not that it's actually what happens on the project. This is what happened with the Momota GAN. Stop trying to keep things "pretty" in your eyes and turning these into fan pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In short: You came and changed something and you were reverted. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and act accordingly. You have already bullied me into submission at AKB48. Please don't do the same thing again. I have the right to revert the article to its former state. Please revert it and then we will discuss. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Saying I am trying to keep things pretty is like admitting you are trying to make things ugly. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the above because you decided to turn one discussion into another. The history section goes first on all pages. You don't get to decide that this page should be different. And I'm not trying to make this "ugly". I'm making it like every other article on Wikipedia. Something that you think should not be done because you want to praise this and every other idol group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's two people against one, I surrender for now (in the matter of the section order). I still want to have some kind of a list of singles in the article, but I will have to think about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Moscow Connection, it's not "two people against one", and the discussion is not about "surrendering" or "winning". As has been pointed out several times, the clear community-wide consensus for other similar articles is to put the "History" section first and to leave out lists of singles if the article has a separate "Discography" article. If you are not yet convinced by the recent comments above by both me and Ryulong, why not ask for a third opinion at the relevant Music project? Although if you wish to be taken seriously, I think you will need to provide a compelling reason why you think this article ought to be arranged differently from all other well-developed Wikipedia articles on popular bands. --DAJF (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Overly detailed" tag

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have tried to remove the {{overly detailed}} tag because I don't see anything wrong with the page. I am asking the people who think it is over-detailed to explain what parts exactly they think are overly detailed exactly.
The page has been truncated by 50% since January. I personally think that there's nothing more to delete. I think the article now discusses only basic facts. Yes, there are many short paragraphs, but every paragraph is dedicated to something important, to some important event that happened, and should be expanded instead. I am also keeping in mind that this article should be rewritten and upgraded to GA class sooner or later and that in order to achieve this it has to be longer than now.
Ryulong and DAJF, please explain what parts should be shortened and how. Let's condense what has to be condensed and remove the tag.
Also, Ryulong, DAJF, Boneyard90, could you help to bring the article to a B status? The article seems to be rather close. Let's do it now, as fast as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no great interest in working on this article, but I have made the following changes:

  • I have removed the "overly detailed" banner". I found the detail appropriate to a B-class article. In style and content, I found none of the cloying prose or hyperbole typical of other J-Pop articles (esp. those about teenage girl groups).
  • I have consolidated a number of paragraphs in each section. The lead contributor might think that in the previous format, each paragraph represented "some important event" and that it should stand alone, but there are often common threads, if nothing else, they happened during the same year. A one- or two-sentence paragraph in an encyclopedia article should have almost no connection with the paragraph above or below. They should be used sparingly.
  • In my opinion, it satisfies B-class criteria. If, after other editors have made changes, and none have upgraded the assessment, please send me a message, and I will take a final look and assess it.
- Boneyard90 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that even just consolidating some of the one-line "paragraphs" made a definite improvement, and the article is well on its way to becoming "B class" as far as WikiProject Japan is concerned. I have already ticked the criteria met, but am not sure about the "Supporting materials" or "Accessibility" criteria (probably OK), so maybe someone else can look at them. --DAJF (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Infobox and photos are more than sufficient for "Supporting Materials". The article is free of unexplained jargon and there is no unnecessary or un-translated Japanese terms, so I find Accessibility adequate. I've passed the last two criteria and assessed it B-class. If another editor disagrees or blieves I acted hastily, please change the assessment and provide points for improvement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Crayon Pop

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone please look at this discussion related to Momoiro Clover Z: Talk:Crayon Pop#Momoiro Clover Z? --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Blackface controversy?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't see this [[1]] anywhere, despite it was criticized by several people [[2]], even starting a petition against it [[3]])

Sorry for using a single source, but they are the only English translations site I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:4500:8589:70D0:763F:EEA4:B14E (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Momoiro Clover Z. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

blackface

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

I have removed the content relating to the blackface incident, please find reliable and verifiable sources if you wish to restore this content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would you consider it vandalism? Because it obviously isn't. I located multiple reliable sources, so it passes notability requirements. If there wasn't much attention, then there wouldn't be sources, would there? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
It's vandalism to say that the members of the group are known for wearing blackface. They didn't wear it even once. (Cause the segment wasn't aired.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you might need to read WP:NOT VANDALISM before you make any further comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I made the content on the blackface racism longer and put a couple more sources.

Did you really mean to say "They didn't wear it even once."? then how come there are pictures on the sources with them in blackface? Things don't suddenly cease to exist just cos they aren't aired on TV.124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You said "They didn't wear it even once." that isn't the same as "Yes, there haven't worn it on stage" But its no problem. There are lots of sources now so the content is fine, and thanks. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? What exactly does WP:WEIGHT say about situations like this?

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

1 source is from the author Brian Ashcraft written on the HUGELY FAMOUS news website Kotaku.

1 source is from aramajapan, a major news site catering exclusively with Japanese entertainment.

1 source is from j-cast - a major Japanese news site.

1 source is from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who writes from the New York Times.

So does that sound as if it really violates WEIGHT? I don't think so, bro. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I made the content on the blackface racism longer and put a couple more sources.
    — It's not racism. They simply wanted to perform with a very respected Japanese band and they used the same makeup as them. The J-CAST article simply says that the group was criticized by a New York Times reporter and by black people, that's all. It doesn't accuse or even criticize the group.
    The version you've added now [5] is also false. There was no performance, the performance was only planned. If even it was filmed, it wasn't aired. In short, I'm not reverting you simply because I respect the rules of Wikipedia and won't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"It's not racism. They simply wanted to perform with a very respected Japanese band and they used the same makeup as them." that's beautiful, do you have a source for it?

Besides, we are not saying that they are racist, we are saying that they were criticized for racism.

"The J-CAST article simply says that the group was criticized by a New York Times reporter and by black people, that's all." thank you, I'm glad you acknowledged that there is a source confirming that they were criticized.124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Placing the information in the lead as if it were a defining aspect of the band is a huge POV-pushing violation of WP:WEIGHT—and how is the source (aramajapan) an WP:RS? I've replaced it with a source form the Japan Times. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the vast majority of this group's international media coverage is in regards to this controversy, then yeah - it's totally suitable for the lede and far more notable than the fact that collaborated with Kiss or the other rather trivial content currently on the lede. But, the source you supplied was a good improvement, thanks. I will put it back on the lede and make sure it has better sources. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure why the main content regarding this issue is currently part of the Kiss section. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I moved the main content to its own section, rather than having readers think it's connected to KISS.
I've restored but also trimmed the lede content, and added a lot more sources. The large amount of sources show clearly that this is no longer a WEIGHT issue. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Considering that the vast majority of this group's international media coverage is in regards to this controversy"—Let's check out Google news search:
"Momoiro Clover Z" -blackface (3,820 hits)
"Momoiro Clover Z" blackface (19 hits)
You're walking straight into a block, 124.106.139.19. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
That's nice, I will accept your judgement on if this will result in a block or not, because you seem to have extensive experience of being blocked yourself, so you probably know what you're talking about. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
IP, please focus on content. This is your last warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
IP, if you blank another editor's comment without explanation again as you did here, I will request that you be blocked. It's pretty rare that an IP editor causes disruption edit-warring on an article and the result is temporary full protection, so you should know that you got off extremely easy on that recent ANI thread. You must use the talk page to resolve the content dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So............................

Latest comment: 6 years ago61 comments6 people in discussion

Why is the racism/blackface controversy hiding in a section titled "Collaboration with KISS"? I propose the section title reflects the content within. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

so, do you both consider the section title "Collaboration with KISS to be suitable for this content? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just "2015"? Every other year in the history section has a descriptive title, giving the readers an idea of what is in that section. Perhaps "2015 Collaboration with KISS and Blackface appearance" would match the rest of the section titles a little better? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
?! What you are doing now is called WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm afraid soon no one will continue to AGF you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree. It is a BLP violation to state -- or even indirectly imply by means of a section header -- that the group are known particularly for the blackface incident, or that it was a defining characteristic of their 2015 activity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Moscow Connection No, what I'm doing is saying that I don't agree with your suggestion and making one of my own. I'm sorry but you seem to have some major WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article. That's okay, it's good to have some passion - but it doesn't mean that everyone else will agree with you, neither does it mean that everyone else has to gain your permission before changing the article.
Curly "JFC" Turkey "but you are not restoring a subsection header for the blackface incident." - I'm sorry bro, but is that your decision to make? Clue: the answer is "no"
"It is a BLP violation to state -- or even indirectly imply by means of a section header -- that the group are known particularly for the blackface incident, or that it was a defining characteristic of their 2015 activity." that's strange because when I search for "Momoiro Clover Z 2015" one of the first results I get is for the blackface incident. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
We already knew what bad-faith tricks you were up to, but you just reaffirmed them (again) with this comment. WP:IDHT is a blockable (and WP:TBANnable) offense.
For the record—for anyone but Spacecowboy, who doesn't care—a news search of "Momoiro Clover Z 2015" turns up two articles out of the first ten that talk about the blackface incident, and "Momoiro Clover Z" turns up none in the first ten pages (after which I gave up). The fact that both Spacecowboy and the IP insist Western coverage is saturated with not only this issue, but the exact same deliberate misrepresentation of the reporting on it, makes me wonder if maybe they should be investigated. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Curly calm down please. Every single thing you say is threatening to have someone blocked. You really don't have to turn everything into a fight.
I'm sorry, but saying "If you don't agree with me, I'm gonna have a tantrum and have you blocked" isn't really an effective way to discuss something.
Two results in the first ten, does seem enough to consider the incident notable. Maybe not worth of the lede, but certainly notable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't notice your last line. Who should be investigated and why? It all sounds very exciting. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: You and 124.106.139.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP in the same range as 124.106.135.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (whom two separate SPI-filers accused of being you back in December), are both insisting on a bizarrely idiosyncratic content proposal. CT is implying that you are logging out in order to push a POV and edit war. I would post this clarification on your talk page, but you just now insisted (suddenlu, right out the gate) that I never post on your talk page again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Surely an SPI report is the place for this sort of claim. And, Hijari88, please focus on content. This is your last warning. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop calling me "Hijari". Anyway, I have been focusing on content. You have been refusing to acknowledge anything I (or anyone else, for that matter) say about content, though. Pointing out that you and a mysterious IP are the only ones arguing for your content position, and that the content must therefore stay out pending some change in that situation, is appropriately content-focused and is not a violation of any talk page guideline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"does seem enough to consider the incident notable"—it is notable. It's noted in the article. I myself provided the WP:RS for it. It has not played even remotely a significant enough rôle to warrant either a mention in the lead or a subsection to itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop calling me "Hijari" - oh, okay. I guess that's important. I will just call you 88 to avoid confusion.
"It has not played even remotely a significant enough rôle to warrant either a mention in the lead or a subsection to itself." the lede? I might agree with you there.
But not a subsection? I'm not sure I can agree there.
It certainly shouldn't be hidden away in the way that it currently is. We are going round in circles right now, perhaps we should just get some outside opinions from uninvolved parties and abide by whatever they suggest? That's probably the easiest solution. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy402: Umm... you did call me 88. You called me "Hijari88". What I was requesting was that you call me "Hijiri(88)". By saying I will just call you 88 to avoid confusion, are you pulling a Catflap08/TilEulenspiegel and insinuating that I am a fascist? Your other edits made at around the same time show you were clearly thinking about me,[6][7] number symbolism and Nazis[8] in the general vicinity of each other, so it's really, really difficult to take it as a good-faith coincidence. That is highly inappropriate and if that is what you meant you will almost certainly be blocked. Please explain yourself immediately.
Anyway, you already did get an outside opinion -- mine. And I agree with Hotwiki and Moscow Connection and Curly Turkey. And Swarm already protected this page to give you a chance to agree with us or convince us. If you really, really think we are just the only four Wikipedians who would happen to disagree with you on this, then you can open an RFC, but be warned that if you do not present the dispute accurately and neutrally in the RFC question it will be modified.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: Sorry. Botched ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"Please explain yourself immediately." Please refrain from speaking to me as if you're in any position to demand explanations.
Are we really going to have a discussion because I misspelled a foreign name "Hijiri" as "Hijari"? Oh, and sorry that you're offended by people calling you "88" - erm...don't choose it as part of your name, if the use of it offends you so much? There is no need to be defensive over someone calling you part of your name. So, to make sure that I don't misspell your name again, and that I avoid the use of a number that offends you so much (despite you choosing that number yourself) shall I call you "Hi-chan"?
"Anyway, you already did get an outside opinion -- mine." Thanks, but I think I would prefer someone without a connection to this article and the editors involved.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer someone without a connection to this article and the editors involved That's ironic.[9] Anyway, if you really want that, then why have you taken no steps to pursue it despite multiple editors repeatedly telling you to do so over several days. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Chill out bro. Please stop looking for a fight. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a fight. I'm telling you that you should try to gather consensus for your proposed changes to the article. Otherwise, I don't even know what we're all still doing here...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of a time limit. The article is protected. Why rush? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it looks like you are just waiting out the page protection so you can continue unilaterally edit-warring. If you have given up on trying to get consensus for your edits and are just going to stop making them, then we can request immediate unprotection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"Because it looks like you are just waiting out the page protection so you can continue unilaterally edit-warring."
Well, it can "look like" anything you wish and you can jump to any bad faith assumption you desire.
If you must know why, then I guess I can tell you - I'm in the middle of typing a QA report for my boss and organizing next week's training schedule for new employees, as fascinating as this article is, I guess doing things that pay my wages take priority.
As far as I was concerned the protection can stay until we all have time to discuss this properly and obtain clear consensus for any changes that may be required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: So, can I guess from this that your work situation has cooled down a bit and you have decided to spend more time on Wikipedia? Have you made any progress on figuring out what exactly you want the article to say? I'd be happy to open an RFC to invite more outside voices on ... whatever the issue is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC) (edited 11:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC))
It's calmed down a little, so yes if you have the time and motivation to open an RFC, that might be useful.
Just to clarify, my ideal solution would be to have a small section devoted to the blackface controversy. I am willing to compromise and have no mention of the controversy on the lede. And, I consider not having the blackface content hidden within a section about KISS to be important. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not a compromise—it's not in the lead because that would be a gross distortion of the WP:WEIGHT of the incident; ditto the subsection. It was a brief, blink-and-you-missed-it incident in the group's 10-year career. It has never been "hidden" in the article—you simply ignore the propsed solutions that don't result in a special, WP:UNDUE subsection (with a prominent placement in the Table of Contents) that you so desire. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, lets wait for the RFC that Hijiri 88 has said he will open and see what other people say. I see no point in going over what we've already said, you know my opinion, I know yours. Other people will give theirs, there will be consensus and we can move on without any further confrontation. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So............................ what's the RFC question? Should the blackface incident currently referred to in the article body be given its own subsection? If yes, how should this subsection be titled? I can tell you in advance that the responses will be unanimously "No - why?", because what's there is only one fairly short sentence. You need more reliable sources, with more information to add to the article and justify giving it its own heading. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

References

  1. ^ https://kotaku.com/blackface-continues-in-japan-in-2015-1685617827
  2. ^ http://aramajapan.com/news/momoiro-clover-z-cancels-appearance-following-blackface-backlash/16646/
  3. ^ http://www.japantrends.com/blackface-in-japan-momoiro-clover-z-rats-star-fuji-tv/
  4. ^ https://www.vox.com/2015/3/17/8230783/japan-racism-blackface
  5. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/11/japan-blackface/70139238/
  6. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/09/national/fuji-tv-removes-blackface-segment-after-outcry/
  7. ^ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43qn9j/this-japanese-comedian-celebrated-new-years-in-blackface
  8. ^ http://www.ibtimes.com/japan-blackface-music-show-fuji-tv-cancels-segment-after-public-outcry-1840710
  9. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/world/asia/japan-comedian-blackface.html
"Should the blackface incident be mentioned in the lede?" "Should the blackface incident have its own subsection?" "If no, then should the current subsections be retitled to avoid confusion?" That's what I think are relevant questions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What is in those sources that we can add to the article? The dates in the URLs, with the exception of the NYT article (a tertiary source that just mentions the group in passing with a link to the Kotaku article) all come from the same one-week period, and none of the articles seem to be particularly long. You also just said above that you were willing to abandon mentioning it in the lead, but now you are insisting that the RFC question address it? Also, what confusion? Everyone else here except you seems to think that "2015" would be a better title, so the problem being "confusion" doesn't make sense: you said above that your problem is with consistency with the other subsection titles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, in the current situation (with the article) the incident shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. The band's schedule is very tight, there are thousands and thousands of news articles written about them every year, but the 2015 section now mentions only two releases. (Arguably the most important ones. There was one more single, there were several DVDs, many concerts, television appearances and other stuff.) Therefore this completely unimportant incident has nothing to do here (per WP:WEIGHT). --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
How is there a need for an RfC? An RfC consensus cannot override policy, and this is as clear-cut a WP:WEIGHT issue as you get. We have a consensus against, and out of that short list of sources, neither Arama Japan nor Japan Trends count as WP:RSes. Please stop humouring the POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you think there would be any harm done with an RFC? I see it as an opportunity for all involved to have some closure on a discussion that has proven to be a little annoying to deal with.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
An RfC would only waste the time of more editors. The discussion shows there is no consensus to elevate this pseudo controversy by parading it in the lead or its own section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I gotta say that, having seen 420's IDHT response to "What do you think the question should be?", I agree that any RFC would just be a further waste of the community's time. There is unanimous consensus against 420's edits, so (assuming good faith on the part of everyone here) an RFC would not change much. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course there isn't unanimous consensus. I think the IP editor agrees with me. Right now, I see people with a history of promoting Jpop or Japanese focused articles (oh and one guy who followed me here, because of edits I made a couple of years ago that he didn't like) So, the unbiased opinions that an RFC would offer are lacking at the moment. But don't be scared, homie - it's just an RFC. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
A history of promoting Japanese focused and Jpop articles? What are you doing here if not that? We are all supposed to be here to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Ignore it—he's playing mind games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • please explain to me before removing my content why exactly you are removing sourced, verified content from the page? I'm not exactly sure what rationale could be cited to remove two extra sentences that flesh out the original sentence with sources. It seems as if you and others simply do not want the content in the article, not that there is a basis for removing that content. --TorsodogTalk 23:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I keep being told to discuss, however there is no discussion happening. Only deletion of sourced material by two editors that cannont demonstrate why the material should be deleted. Please answer my previous question. --TorsodogTalk 23:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So, you've simply ignored the entire contents of the last two sections. We'll "discuss" when you stop pretending there's been no discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) The discussion is happening right here. And see one section above.
        I've already stated my opinion and I wouldn't want to repeat myself. But okay, I will repeat just for you. It was a non-notable incident that was immediately forgotten. Currently the article doesn't even have basic information about their activities in 2015. Adding a giant paragraph like this violates WP:WEIGHT. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
        • What "giant paragraph"? It is three sentences buried in their history section. This in no way violates WP:Weight --TorsodogTalk 00:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • To explain myself further, I agree that this should not be in the lead. I also am fine with it not having its own "Controveries" section. But not not allow 3 sentence on the matter? That isn't right. As others have said before, there was a LOT of international coverage of this incident. What is the rationale for not having 3 sentence in the article on it? WP:Weight is not a valid argument. --TorsodogTalk 00:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The way Wikipedia works is that people wanting to add text need to explain how that text is helpful for an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. What impact did the incident have on the group? How was their career affected? Was it good or bad? What reliable secondary source has provided an analysis of those issues? Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am aware of how Wikipedia works, however that isn't an argument as to why my 2 sentences shouldn't be included. Your questions are good ones, however these 2 editors are not allowing anyone to explore and answer those questions by removing facts of the event from the article. The event happened. Not having answers to your questions doesn't mean that we shouldn't include the event in the article for others to expand on in the future, no? --TorsodogTalk 00:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • "however these 2 editors are not allowing anyone"—more than "these two editors" have expressed their concerns with the way this information has been added and with the WP:UNDUE amount of space that's been attempted to be given to it. The event happened; it's been noted in the article. Beyond that, you'll have to demonstrate how adding any amount of detail beyond what's there is giving it due weight. It was a minor, barely-noted incident years ago in the group's ten-year history, and as I've demonstrated above, is mentioned in less than half a percent of news articles in a Google news search that cover the band. The attempt to inflate the amount of coverage this article gives this minor incident is an attempt to inflate the importance of the incident far, far beyond what sources have done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The way you talk, you'd think I was writing 5,000 characters and several paragraphs. I'm adding 2 sentences to a history section, (roughly) 465 characters to a 15,875 character article. How is it undue? It's simply and concisely explaining the entire event. And exactly how many more editors have expressed concern about the way I'm adding these 2 sentences? At this point I only saw two editors. --TorsodogTalk 02:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Where did you learn to count? You have myself, Johnuniq, and Moscow Connection just today, as well as Hijiri88 throughout. Your prose made up 103 words (619B) out of 1948 (11KB), which translates to 5.3% of the readable prose of the entire article, for a minor event reported in less than half a percent of news sources. One could argue the event shouldn't be in the article at all, given the lack of impact it has had on their career (the show wasn't even broadcast), but here you are trying to bloat it into such an event that it takes up an entire four-sentence paragraph taking up 5.3% of the article—and then trying to make it seem like you're being "reasonable" for not trying to force it into the lead or the Table of Contents. This is flat-out absurd. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What is happening on this article is obvious. There have been numerous editors who have tried to add sourced content on this blackface controversy, but as soon as they do, they get tag teamed by editors who think they own the article. This isn't consensus, this is bad faith editing by editors with a history of disrupting wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that everything mentioned in a source must be in an article? How is the text (diff) helpful for an encyclopedic understanding of the topic? What impact did the incident have on the group? How was their career affected? Was it good or bad? What reliable secondary source has provided an analysis of those issues? Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Johnuniq: Both Torsodog and Spacecowboy420 are editwarring to keep in this material for which there's a strong consensus to keep out, and Spacecowboy's going on about "tag-teaming" (!!!). Both should be blocked. I've reported them both at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Torsodog reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). Unfortunately, nobody's taken a look at it yet, and the two of them are trying to filibuster and spread FUD that it's all the rest of us who are "tag-teaming" to keep this material out of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Just disclosing that I saw CT's ping yesterday and have been watching this play out. I'm terribly disappointed but not all that surprised, given that waiting for page protection to expire and then waiting some more was pretty much what I expected 420 would do. Anyway, I've requested Swarm (talk · contribs) re-protect this page pending consensus on what to do about this. If the page is re-protected and Spacecowboy420 and Torsodog suddenly lose interest in this discussion, then return once the protection expires again, both editors should be blocked and/or TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Torsodog trying to include that content just proves how false claims of consensus are regarding removing that content.
But no, I have not lost interest in the discussion. The content is notable and should be included - there are just a few disruptive editors with long block histories who are trying to whitewash the blackface (see what I did there?) And Hachi-ju Hachi-kun - where is the RFC that you promised? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Your off-topic personal attack (which curiously echoes that of the Mitsubishi love sock-IP...) aside, there was no "promise": I asked you what the RFC question should be, and you responded with a string of obviously irrelevant/inflammatory/useless/already-answered questions. You then started edit-warring (again) and got the page protected (again). Even had I made you a conditional promise, I would not be bound to keep it after you needlessly violated the conditions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The content is included. Nobody's falling for your games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The content is included, agreed - but you're determined to hide it away and make it tiny. Oh yeah - no game, bro. Games have winners - the only winners here are the readers. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Hijiri

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your edit summary - could you explain " Getting one other guy to come in and agree with you..." to me, please? I was wondering if you thought I was canvassing and asking people to support my edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your mind games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't find your comment relevant to this discussion. Quit with the antagonistic comments, please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
420, I've changed your obvious trolling/inflammatory section title (you should know better than to play around with my username and emphasize the numeric string at the end at this point, and even if that weren't the case you shouldn't name article talk page sections after other editors). I'm not going to respond to your actual comment since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense: my edit summary was clear enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Momoiro_Clover_Z/Archive_1&oldid=1136369212"