Misplaced Pages

Talk:Babymetal: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:15, 7 August 2014 editUnniKnox96 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,273 edits →"Head Bangya!!": Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:51, 28 November 2024 edit undoDragonFury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,565 edits →Members section: ReplyTag: Reply 
(457 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Babymetal|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|class=start |living=yes |listas=Babymetal |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=low}} {{WikiProject Biography |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=start|importance=low|music=y|update=y}} {{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|music=y|bio=y|update=}}
{{WikiProject Pop music|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Pop music|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Metal|class=start}} {{WikiProject Metal}}
{{WikiProject Women in Music |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{To do|inner= {{To do|inner=
*Add 'Kami Band' members in either the ] or ] sections with reliable references. *<s>Add 'Kami Band' members in either the ] or ] sections with reliable references.</s>
*Add band logo and images. *<s>Add band images.</s>
*Update MV, live disc releases, etc. with the latest.
*Check all sources to insure that they are all reliable as some may be unreliable, any unreliable sources should be replaced.
}} }}
{{split article|from=Babymetal|to=Babymetal discography|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Babymetal&diff=643265265&oldid=643250929|date=21:34, 19 January 2015}}
{{reqphoto}}
{{Annual readership}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Babymetal/Archive |archiveprefix=Talk:Babymetal/Archive
Line 18: Line 19:
|age=2160 |age=2160
|maxarchsize=150000 |maxarchsize=150000
|numberstart=1 |numberstart=3
|minkeepthreads=4
|archivebox=yes
|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
|box-advert=yes
}} }}


== The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group'. ==
==Genre==
Please don't revert cited material without reason. If you want to add any other genres, you need sources per ]. ] (])

Please stop adding this to the infobox:
{{quote|],<ref name="barks-profile">{{cite news|url=http://www.en.barks.jp/artist/?id=1000003197&m=bio|title=BABYMETAL – Biography – Artist|publisher=<!--]-->Barks|accessdate=2013-12-07}}</ref> ] (more precisely, ] music<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.mtviggy.com/blog-posts/are-japans-death-metal-teenyboppers-babymetal-okay/|title=Are Japan’s Death Metal Teenyboppers Babymetal Okay?|work=MTV Iggy|date=2014-03-07|accessdate=2014-06-12}}</ref>), ],<ref name="metalhammer20131120">{{cite news|url=http://www.metal-hammer.de/news/meldungen/article501896/metal-wahnsinn-in-japan-babymetal-werben-fuer-metallica.html|title=Metal-Wahnsinn in Japan Babymetal werben für Metallica|trans_title=Metal Madness in Japan: Babymetal advertises Metallica|work=]|date=2013-11-20|accessdate=2013-12-07|language=German}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.musicman-net.com/artist/27435.html|title=BABYMETAL「SUMMER CAMP 2013」に爆音生バンドを従え登場|trans_title=BABYMETAL "Summer Camp 2013" appearance followed by a roaring live band|publisher=Musicman-NET|date=2013-07-17|accessdate=2013-12-07|language=Japanese}}</ref> melodic speed metal,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000076087|title=アイドルとメタルの融合BABYMETALが、「メタル女子会」イベントに参戦|work=Barks|date=2013-01-10|accessdate=2014-05-14|language=Japanese}}</ref><br />]}}

This is highly incorrect and as I have previously argued with ] in a ] the genre in the infobox should be to ] of which this fails as there is no such thing as Kawaii metal or Melodic speed metal, they are merely dubbed genres used to describe the band and should remain in the musical style. As for Symphonic death metal that is a sub-genre of death metal so there is really no need to go into specifics, its supposed to be generalised and the idea of stating ''more precisely, ] music'' next to Jpop is highly unnecessary here and once again deserves to be in the musical style. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

==Rewrite==
The whole article needs a complete rewrite because it has badly written English. ] (]) 08:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

: It was a Japanese user: . I've reverted it for now, but maybe it can be rewritten. (Actually, ] is the main contributor to the Japanese article.) --] (]) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

:: I apologize for my lack of experience with English sentences. --] (]) 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

::: {{ping|Ryotax0710}} Can you find some sources for what you wrote (about the fox sign, colors, gothic clothes, choreography, backup acts, fans, etc.)? Cause the "特徴" section in the Japanese Misplaced Pages is also unsourced. I will be happy to add something about it to the article, but I need ].<br />As for the links I've removed, I did it because people in the English Misplaced Pages don't like it when there are many links. If there are three, it looks okay. But if there are seven, someone who hates external links will eventually come and delete all except one or two. And then I will have to fight to revert it back to three.<br />By the way, this article is very popular (compare the views and ), so you should visit the English Misplaced Pages more often. --] (]) 05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} The sources is still insufficient though it tried to translate referring to a Japanese Misplaced Pages. Therefore, it consented to the deletion. Moreover, the sources in the part of "特徴" of a Japanese Misplaced Pages is insufficient though wrote referring to magazine Hedoban in "参考文献" part. I want to add the sources in detail in the future.<br />The rule of an English Misplaced Pages understood.<br />I am surprised at the number of visits of English Misplaced Pages. After studying English, I want to visit the English Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 14:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|Ryotax0710}} If you source the Japanese "特徴" section (I don't have the ''Hedoban'' magazine, so I can't do it myself), I will correct the English in and add it back. For the most part, it is definitely worth including in the article.<br />Don't hesitate to ask me if you need assistance with something in the English Misplaced Pages. I can correct any sentences you want to add, etc. --] (]) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} Thank you. It is reassuring. The sources of the article in "特徴" part is insufficient. After completing the sources by the Japanese Misplaced Pages, I want to demand the correction. --] (]) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::: {{ping|Ryotax0710}} You are welcome. After you add sources in the Japanese Misplaced Pages, post here. Or, if I don't notice it, on my talk page. (You can also suggest the exact sentences to add.) --] (]) 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} I got it. --] (]) 08:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Only sentences where the web source existed were translated from "特徴" part of Japanese Misplaced Pages. Could you please revise the following sentences.

* The theme color of the group is based on red and the black.

* Not the ] but "Kitsune sign" (fox of the shadowgraph) is used though the element of Heavy Metal exists in music and the performance.

* Elements of the ] and ], etc. are included in the choreography of the dance.

* The image and the narration of the picture story show style that is called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" are used in a single concert.

* The tune of unit "Black Babymetal" (stylized "BLACK BABYMETAL") by the solo tune, Moametal, and Yuimetal of Su-metal exists besides a usual tune.

* The metallic arrangement version of some tunes of J-pop of year where the member was born is sung in the birthday concert ("Seitansai").

* Two kinds of backing bands exist, and "Babybone" (stylized "BABYBONE") is an mime backing band in skeleton suits, and "Full metal band" (stylized "FULL METAL BAND") becomes a live performance backing band in white robe. It changes by the concert and the set list respectively. Moreover, "Sisterbone" (stylized "SISTERBONE") might join as a backing dancer.

: --] (]) 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

::Give me a week or so to "gather strength" to do it. --] (]) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} I got it. (The sources was added.) --] (]) 21:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Ryotax0710}} I'm sorry it took so long.
{{outdent|::::}}
* ''The theme color of the group is based on red and the black.''
** Done.
* ''Not the ] but "Kitsune sign" (fox of the shadowgraph) is used though the element of Heavy Metal exists in music and the performance.''
** Fox sign done. I'm not sure what to add about elements of heavy metal.<br />Any suggestions?
* ''Elements of the ] and ], etc. are included in the choreography of the dance.''
** I'm not sure how to add this and what to add. I want to add something about dances and gymnastics, yes...<br />Your links say:
**# "One of the charming features is aggressive performance that extends beyong the boundaries of an idol concert (featuring headbanging, a "race" reminiscent of the wall of death, etc.)" (ライブではアイドルの枠を超えたアグレッシブなパフォーマンス（激しいヘッドバンギングやウォールオブデスを彷彿とさせる“かけっこ”など）も魅力のひとつ。);
**# : "The choreography with the members fainting in the interlude is also cool." (間奏でメンバーが失神する振り付けもカッコいい。), "transcending the genres such as rock and idol" (ロック／アイドルといったジャンルを超越する);
** What I have found:
**# : "In the fighting scene between the choruses, MOAMETAL showed more acrobatic performance like kicking with both feet."
**# : "doll-like dancing".
**# : "skilled singing and dance performances have become a hot topic of conversation", "The March 1 performance was titled "Akai Yoru LEGEND 'Kyodai Corset Matsuri'~Tenka Ichi Metal Budokai Final~," at which all of the spectators participated in the live by wearing neck braces.", "YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL excited the audience during "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" by sprinting down a pathway on the stage."
**# : "The training theme of the day was 'Wall of Death'. began as YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL sprinted across the stage.", "YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL also pitched in perfectly with their dance performance."
** Any suggestions?
* ''The image and the narration of the picture story show style that is called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" are used in a single concert. ''
** I'm not sure. Was the picture story called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" used just once, at one concert? Then I'm not sure it's worth mentioning...<br />I would add something about videos/"picture stories" with narratives being often used, but I'm not sure how to add this and what to say.<br />Any suggestions?
* ''The tune of unit "Black Babymetal" (stylized "BLACK BABYMETAL") by the solo tune, Moametal, and Yuimetal of Su-metal exists besides a usual tune. ''
** Why does the source say "Onedari Metal"? Is it some version of "おねだり大作戦"? How many songs do BLACK BABYMETAL have? "4の歌", what else? And does SU-METAL only have one solo song, "Akatsuki"?<br />Could you suggest which section to add this in?
* ''The metallic arrangement version of some tunes of J-pop of year where the member was born is sung in the birthday concert ("Seitansai"). ''
** It was just one concert, so I don't know if it's worth mentioning...
* ''Two kinds of backing bands exist, and "Babybone" (stylized "BABYBONE") is an mime backing band in skeleton suits, and "Full metal band" (stylized "FULL METAL BAND") becomes a live performance backing band in white robe. It changes by the concert and the set list respectively. Moreover, "Sisterbone" (stylized "SISTERBONE") might join as a backing dancer.''
** Done.<br />Please check if I understood the sources correctly.
--] (]) 03:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} There is no problem. Thank you for the retouch.

:* I'm not sure what to add about elements of heavy metal.<br />Any suggestions?
:** The element of Heavy Metal is a metallic sound and a headbanging, etc.
:***One of the elements of heavy metal is Moa and Yui's Wall of Death. In heavy metal audiences, there is a mosh pit, and at the beginning of the concert, it is empty. When the band starts playing the two sides run towards each other and crash in the middle. This is called the wall of death. Yui and Moa recreate this for Ijime, Dame, Zettai (except for the crashing part)
:*** Another heavy metal item is the theatricality,like when Suzuka is crucified at the end of Legend D. Alice Cooper has been hanging, beheading himself, basically killing hmself in shows for decades.
:*** Another heavymetal element is shooting things to the audience, like in Summer Sonic when Yui and Moa shot smoke at the audience. Heavymetal bands have been throwing things at the audience for years (Ozzy Osborne uses water not smoke)
:*** The element that i first noticed is the short fast paced concerts with few ballads. This is reminiscent of the Ramones, who played very quick high energy shows. Yes, I have been listeneing to metal for years <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:* I'm not sure how to add this and what to add. I want to add something about dances and gymnastics, yes...
:** I selected these.
:::1."One of the charming features is aggressive performance that extends beyong the boundaries of an idol concert (featuring headbanging, a "race" reminiscent of the wall of death, etc.)" (ライブではアイドルの枠を超えたアグレッシブなパフォーマンス（激しいヘッドバンギングやウォールオブデスを彷彿とさせる“かけっこ”など）も魅力のひとつ。);
:::2."doll-like dancing".

:* I'm not sure. Was the picture story called "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" used just once, at one concert? Then I'm not sure it's worth mentioning... <br />I would add something about videos/"picture stories" with narratives being often used, but I'm not sure how to add this and what to say. <br />Any suggestions?
:** I'm sorry. The word was wrong. ( × single concert ○ headlining concert. ) "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" is used many times in most headlining concerts. <br />There is no conversation in the middle of concerts of Babymetal. Moreover, the novel on the picture is used in the middle of headlining concerts.

:* Why does the source say "Onedari Metal"? Is it some version of "おねだり大作戦"? How many songs do BLACK BABYMETAL have? "4の歌", what else? And does SU-METAL only have one solo song, "Akatsuki"? <br />Could you suggest which section to add this in?
:** I think, "Onedari Metal" = "おねだり大作戦". <br />Tune of BLACK BABYMETAL is only "おねだり大作戦" and "4の歌" now. Moreover, solo tune of SU-METAL is only "紅月" and "悪夢の輪舞曲" now. <br />How about "Musical style" section?

:* It was just one concert, so I don't know if it's worth mentioning...
:** The "Seitansai" concert has been held three times up to now.

: --] (]) 14:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Ryotax0710}} I've added the info about BLACK BABYMETAL (see the Members section), but I need to think about how to phrase the information about the "charming features" and the "doll-like dancing" and their "sprinting down a pathway on the stage" . Everything else is much harder, I can't think of a way to make something about narratives or "Kitsune Sama no Mokujiroku" sound encyclopedic. These details are probably not that important... I can also add somethng about the grawls in their songs if I have a reliable source for the info. (I remember you added to the article something along the lines that there were grawls, but they didn't perform them themselves.) --] (]) 23:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Thank you. <br />How about the following sentences?

:::* "Doll-like dancing" , "Headbanging" , and "Wall Of Death or " (sprinting down a pathway on the stage ), etc. are the charming features .

:::It consented. I will leave it to your judgment.
:::--] (]) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

::::Your version doesn't sound encyclopedic in English. :) I have to think about how to add the information properly. --] (]) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::It is a difficult problem...
:::::--] (]) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

== Blacklisted Links Found on ] ==

Cyberbot II has detected links on ] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: ] or ]
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may ]. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist ] or ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the ].

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://t.co/7B21PbTPsF</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bt\.co\b</code> on the global blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://t.co/sEk5Ss94ep</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bt\.co\b</code> on the global blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 12:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

== BABYMETAL on Commons ==
Enjoy the pictures I'd uploaded on Commons and be sure they'll not be deleted! :D
https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:BABYMETAL
] (]) 16:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==

I have made various edits that seem to be reverted for some reason, here is the list of edits I made and why:
*Genres in the infobox - The genres in the infobox should be made minimal to 2 or 3 genres and made to generalise the band/musical artist, in this case, Jpop and death metal since they are two genres most associated with the band, details about the bands genre and overall sound should be made in the 'Musical style' section as that goes into detail about their overall sound. References have also been moved there, and I do plan to expand the section to go into further detail.
*The discography - No idea why you number what single came out first as it's organised into tables that way anyway, also if you look at every featured artist discography, it will be in the format I have placed it in now, simple, clean and easy to follow.
*Members section - You do NOT have to put the ages of the members here, only their name, roll and in the instance of line-up changes, they duration they had that roll, personal details such as their age are already on their own articles, it doesnt need to be mentioned here on this article.
*Repercussion in social networks - I did what was asked, I transformed the list into the prose, what's wrong with that?

If there are anymore disagreements with what I've done, please ask why I have done that BEFORE you revert again, I have my reasons for doing so, and if you are in the right, I will correct it myself, otherwise the major differences so far have aided the page, not the opposite. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:Generally, it might be a good idea to refrain from adding several huge changes all in one single edit, especially when you mix up good and bad edits, bad edits being the removal of valid well sourced content, as you have done.
:Concerning genres: the requirements for genres are stated ], and it says nothing about 2 - 3 genres. Genres, like every other data in Misplaced Pages articles, must be ]. There are several reliable sources which categorize this band as jpop, heavy metal, death metal, thrash metal etc. and they are all in the infobox. The rest of your edits were ok, what is not ok is removing well sourced content, and replacing genres with your favourite unsourced genres. ] (]) 16:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::If you look at several good articles, such as: ], ] and ], notice how the genres in the infobox are either 2 or three genres? And notice that the sources for those genres are NOT in the infobox? This makes it clean and easy to understand, before my edit, it contained many genres and was cluttered with small notes and footnotes, which is just cluttered and ugly to look at, for a more detailed description of the bands sound, you read the Musical style section, not the Infobox.<br/> Also did you not read the reason why I left those two? They are the two most referenced genres, they are not my favourite, if I had my way, it would be a mixture of Synthpop, Trance and Melodic Death Metal, but they are not referenced, so I haven't done that.{{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::As long as you refuse to add sources to your edits, and you keep on removing well sourced genres, your edits will be considered the edits of a Genre Warrior, someone who wants to force his favourite genre unto a band article. Please stop removing sourced material, add your good edits, and leave the bad edits out. Thank you. ] (]) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::You are still not reading what I have wrote have you, you are lazy and unresponsive, if I was a genre warrior, I would have placed Synthpop, Trance and Melodic Death Metal into the infobox as I personally believe those are the genres I think best describe the group, but I am reasoning with you and so far you are ignoring my reasoning, if anything YOU are the genre warrior as you will not have it any other way. Carefully read what I have said to you before and realise that the edits to the infobox are in fact correct. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::I have shown you the ], it says nothing of "2 - 3" genres in one band article. There are scores of band articles in Misplaced Pages with more than 2-3 genres in the infobox and all the genres are properly sourced. You simply want to lay the "death metal" genre unto this band article (which is a valid well sourced genre), while at the same time ignoring the other well sourced genres, such as heavy metal, speed metal etc. Please acquaint yourself with WP:V, and please kindly refrain from name calling, and using insultive words. I have fully read what you have written. Can you please then show me which Misplaced Pages Content Guideline, Policy or Style Guideline are you referring to when you mention "2 - 3 genres" per band article? ] (]) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If all your doing is following the template then fine, if you look at the ] it is the same story there, only three genres for each artist and it is not referenced there, it will be referenced in the article itself, in this case the Musical style, of which ALL genres have been placed there. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 17:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for this message. Now we're discussing reasonably. We can now try to establish community consensus which genres should appear in the infobox. Please note that the band itself does not refer to their music as death metal, but heavy metal (check ) - even though we all know that most of the band's songs are a mix of death metal/power metal with japanese idol pop music. All of these genres are well supported by reliable sources (e.g. mtv, allmusic, huffington post, times, guardian, rolling stones, etc.). Since this band has a mix of a couple of major genres (heavy metal/death metal/power metal mixed together with jpop), I opt for the inclusion of all these genres in the infobox. Let's wait and hear from other editors who frequently edit this article. Thank you. ] (]) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}It would be better to simplify the genres, 'melodic speed metal' for instance is not a real genre, just a means to describe the group, if anything that can just be mentioned in the musical style. ] is a sub-genre of ], so again, can go down into the musical style so as we can generalise the infobox, as the template says we should. This then leaves us with the three primary genres, and I'm not sure why this isn't in the musical style in the first place: "J-pop (more precisely, idol music)", this should definitely be mentioned in said section, it should not be there as it is an explanation of how they sound, and also Idol music sounds like another way of saying pop music, and it isn't even a genre, just a way to describe how they sound. Leaving us with Heavy metal, j-pop and death metal. We can leave the references in if you so desire but there's really no point. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

== More on reactions and spreading ==

I wonder if we can include Twitter or Facebook reactions from notable musicians, and the fact that TheFineBros made a YouTubers React video with Babymetal which sure helped them to become more popular. Lately they opened up an English website and put their music on iTunes and Spotify, and they play at a rock/metal festival in the UK on the main stage and at Lady Gaga concerts in the US, I have to admit that's something. --] (]) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:The article did initially have it's own section dedicated to reactions made by celebrities on Facebook and Twitter however it used primary sources (used the actual comments and tweets) so was seen as more trivial, as for the YouTubers React video, that was in that section but after the rest of the content was removed it didn't seem to fit into place as I merged it into the History section since it was so small. If you can find anymore information regarding their viral success then please let us know here and we can add it again.<br/>As for their concert and festival participation's I have been intending to add to their Live performances section as they are more commonly associated with metal and rock festivals more than your average pop festival, but their tour with Lady Gaga has already been mentioned in their History section so I doubt that needs repeating. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

== Some mistakes ==

Hello guys!!
Well, I saw some mistakes in the Discography section. First, the self titled album was also released as CD+DVD, and I guess that is important to put It there. Second, in the Music Videos, MIKIKO (or, in the case, MIKIKOMETAL) was not the director of the video, MIKIKOMETAL is BABYMETAL's coreographer. And third, on the Video albums, the "LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~" was not released as CD and digital download, just DVD and Blu-ray.
Well, I just wanted to say It to the editors here. I just edit in the portuguese article because my english is not that good. I hope you guys edit It! See U!
] (]) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you for your suggestions, just applied them to the article now! {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
::You're welcome!!<br />] (]) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

== Backing band members ==

Thanks to {{ping|GUROMETAL}} for his information last time, I got curious to as what the Portuguese[REDACTED] looks like and what sources it holds, as it turns out, a lot! One particular subject I was interested in was the members of the backing band or Kami band in this instance as it actually has a table of current and former members which I found to be very informative, however looking at the references I couldn't tell who was in the band and who left, it confused me a bit.<br/> Here are the two sources provided:
*http://trend1.jp/babymetal-kamiband-member-414
*http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/colin-mcquistan/babymetal-worst-band-in-the-world_b_5197380.html
And in case you was looking for the Portuguese version of this article: https://pt.wikipedia.org/Babymetal <br/>I request that either in the members or the live performances sections have a simple list of the Kami band members, current and former. Perhaps if not done beforehand I will do it myself, but for me, its nearly 3am... I am shattered. Thank you for your time! {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:I will edit that section better because I forgot somethings. Btw, thanks for the appreciation of my work! :D<br />] (]) 02:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
::You're welcome! Be sure to share what you find on this page also when you get the chance! :-) {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


I think the actual band members ought to be listed on this article. Here is a link with the info for the latest lineup on the 2014 EU summer tour (sorry I'm not great at tagging stuff like im supposed to)
http://babymetal.net/babymetals-kami-band-explained/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Unfortunately the website link is for an unofficial therefore unreliable fan page, unless there is a reliable source confirming the line up. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
;;If you look at the twitter pages for each of the members they all mention being a part of BABYMETAL: , , and . Also on their Facebook pages but I'm only linking one social media platform thank you very much. ] (]) 10:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to add a sentence listing some famous names who were members of the Kami Band / worked as live backing musicians for BABYMETAL into the "Live performances" section, but I'm against a standalone list of the backing band members. Cause I don't think there is any official information about who plays with the live band now and who played when. It may be that the musicians are meant to be anonymous. Anyway, try to look for ]. Twitter and Facebook don't qualify. Instead of messages like "I play with the band" on Twitter try to find something like "Among the members of the Kami Band, there are such musicians as ... (guitarist from the band ...), ..." in some online music magazine or on a Japanese news website. --] (]) 18:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess, it's the same situation as with the band ]. Junko Sugawara played guitar for them and I've just tried to find some reliable sources about that and the best I've found were Buono! official blog posts. But their Japanese Misplaced Pages article has an subsection for the backing band in the Members section. (I guess fans know the details.)<br /><small>By the way, rock fans should look into ]. It was created as a ] unit (subgroup) to sang songs for an anime called ] and evolved into a vocal pop rock band. Their must-hear song is "My Boy" (). I also recommend "Rottara Rottara" (or "Lotta Love Lotta Love", the guitar riff in it is said to be a tribute to Led Zeppelin) ().</small> --] (]) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

== Tours ==

Hello everyone! :D
Why you guys don't try to make articles to BABYMETAL's tours? I did It in the portuguese wiki (with great references). Would be cool if you do It! :D If you haven't seen It, here's the links to and the .<br />] (]) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:An article based around all of their tours at the moment isn't required, there isn't really much to go on and would result in a stub article so for now it would be best to have all of their tour coverage remain here. For example the ] contains a comprehensive list and a good amount of coverage, mainly due to both their popularity but also due to the fact they've been touring since the 80's, making this article notable. Until Babymetal has such coverage and has also been on many tours for many years, there is no need and can all be mentioned on this article instead. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
::Oh, I see.<br />] (]) 23:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

== Member names ==

Hi guys, I've noticed that throughout the article the girls are inconsistently referred to by the real names and then their stage names and this can easily confuse readers. For example, Suzuka is introduced as her real name, but then is referred to as Su-metal in the "2010&ndash;2012" section, and then she referred to as Suzuka again in the "2013&ndash;present" section. I think that the article should just refer to the members by their real names throughout (since those are the names of their individual articles) and their stage names should just be put in parentheses when they are initially introduced and in the members section. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:Done it, thanks for the suggestion. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 19:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi everyone - just one little question: why is it that the birth dates & years of the three girls were removed? This is especially important considering the context of "not having heard of metal prior the formation of the group" (or some such; i.e. in 2010 SuMetal was not yet 13, whereas MoaMetal and YuiMetal had just turned 11!). Also, this is important info that allows the reader to keep in mind the current age of the three girls. ] (]) 00:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
:This article is dedicated to the group and is not a biography for each member, source material regarding the three members is mentioned on their own articles and this includes their age, their is no need to have their age mentioned in the members section. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

== Music Style ==

Hi everyone. I think the sentence "They have also been dubbed by their record label and fans as "Kawaii" (meaning cute) metal because of their Japanese teen pop style fused together with metal genres" is incorrect. The girls themselves have claimed directly in the past that theirs is a new genre called "Kawaii Metal" and, in fact, reiterated this quite recently in interviews post-Sonisphere ... (?) ] (]) 00:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
:It could be because I'm tired but I'm confused to what you're trying to suggest, are you saying that they are in fact Kawaii metal and it's not a dubbed genre? Or that the trio themselves have stated that they are dubbed Kawaii metal and not their label?
#Kawaii metal is a fusion genre, "dubbed" because it's not an actual genre, the bands real genre is a fusion of ], ] and ].
#The label HAS stated that they have dubbed them as Kawaii metal, so if the band themselves have also, simply add it in and expand the sentence to "They have also been dubbed by their record label, fans and the trio themselves...".
:Please elaborate further so as we can discuss, thank you. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::Ah - well, then, you've answered my question. Perhaps it should be more explicited/specified in the entry proper then, since the term "dubbed" does not indicate whether it is they/Kobametal or "some other people" (i.e. fans, record lable) that have actually coined the term ... In fact, they/Kobametal were first to coined the term. Hence my own question/uncertainty with the term and phrasing of the sentence. Thanks for answering - much appreciated! ] (]) 23:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

== Discography Layout ==
Why does the discography keep changing? The layout I formatted it into was correct, just look at literally every good or featured discography article and you will see the correct layout, this whatever people are changing it to is completely incorrect and is very messy and cluttered. Please discuss your reasons before you change it again. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist hide}}

== Members order ==

Why the order of the members name here is SU-METAL, MOAMETAL and YUIMETAL? The correct order is SU-METAL, YUIMETAL and MOAMETAL.<br />Probably to you the order isn't important but, believe, this is. You can see when they introduce themselves, they always use this order. I don't know if somebody will correct It but should be better this way.<br />] (]) 02:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:It is in order of position in the band, in this case Suzuka Nakamoto is the lead singer so goes at the top of the three, then the other two share the same duties so to order them it must be in alphabetical order via surname which it is. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 03:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::<s>There's an official order, please don't change it.</s> --] (]) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::I've changed it to "SU-METAL, YUIMETAL, MOAMETAL". My mistake, I didn't notice. I probably put them in an incorrect order from the very beginning. (Someone want to fix the order in all languages? I don't have time now.) --] (]) 06:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

== Once again justifying my edits - SilentDan297 ==

Don't understand why this particular article seems to keep going to a state where it is NOT in accordance of the guidelines given to us by Misplaced Pages itself, no one has given me any clear reason what so ever to as why my edits are wrong in any way, last time I check they where all correct by Wiki standards, so lets go through these edits again;

'''Infobox'''
<br/>I have already had this massive argument, let me explain it again. Citing to the guideline: ] it tells you everything that must be in the infobox and what manner to put it on, now on ] it states that 2-4 general genres should be used to describe the artist, in this case I substituted ], ] and ] since they are the three top generalized genres used to describe the band by professional critics and reporters, however someone keeps adding in Kawaii metal, a fake genre used to dub the band as a means of promotion, ] which is a sub-genre of Death metal so does not need to be mentioned here and melodic speed metal is also a fake genre used to simply describe the band's mixture of death and speed metal. Also this point: "J-pop (more precisely, idol music)" is not right at all, again it should be mentioned in the musical style section, you quite simply do not add such details in the infobox as it is meant to be generalised! That is why only those three genres are there. Also the ], it is not mentioned on the template that years active should be here, so stop adding that!

'''Discography'''
<br/>So without even citing the guidelines, the format which it keeps getting reverted to is simply ugly, disorganized and cluttered, I mean why number each album? People can count you know, and on the singles what on Earth is an "Indie single"? To me that describes a song that was self-released without a label, which is false for every product this band has released and half of the songs aren't even numbered anyway so why number them!? The translations make no sense cause most of them translate back to what it already says! Whats the point of this? So now if we refer to the guideline ], Album/single name comes FIRST, then it's the album details (Release date, label and available formats) then peak chart positions, then number of sales and then finally the certifications, the exact format I used! A simple, easy to follow table so stop reverting this!

'''Members'''
<br/>DO NOT ADD BIRTH-DATES AND AGES! This is not required at all! Yes I understand it's a big deal that the fact these girls are so young, making them some of the youngest metal starts today, but that is already mentioned in the history section of the article and the birth years and ages, along with any other biographical information regarding the trio is already mentioned on their own articles! It is not needed here! While there is no official guideline for this let me cite some featured articles that use the format of; Name, instruments and years active (only if there has been member changes): ], ], ] and ] among other featured and good articles, they all use the same format!

'''Other'''
<br/>As for the rest of the information, such as the quotes used in the musical style, I feel they are inconsistent with the rest of the article, if you are to add them it least make it consistent and don't repeat what has already been mentioned because that is what those interviews where doing. Again please and I mean PLEASE discuss any further changes, I have given very good reasons and have cited to Misplaced Pages guidelines just to justify myself, if you think your format is still correct then you're wrong and if you think it's okay to disobey the guidelines well it's not, they are there for a reason so if you want to go by your own rules make a fan website or edit a ] site instead cause that's not how it works here. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 02:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:First of all, please don't try to force you edits in by edit warring. You came to ths article on June 19 and make some changes without any prior discussion.<br />Second, I have found some stuff that you said ("DO NOT ADD BIRTH-DATES AND AGES!", "if you want to go by your own rules make a fan website or edit a Wikia site instead cause that's not how it works here") rather rude.

:;Infobox
:The genres are sourced. ] is not a guideline. ], a featured article, lists 7. Also, several editors seem to want to add "kawaii metal" to the infobox. I agree with them.
::I think you'll find it is a guideline, otherwise what's the point in it existing? And Micheal Jackson is a special case, he has delved into essentially every genre there is to offer, Babymetal on the other hand has delved into metal and pop, that's it. Kawaii metal as I have said time and time again is an unofficial genre, it is only used to describe the band as a means of promotion therefore should not be there. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:] doesn't say the years shouldn't be there, so stop deleting that.
::If you look at the ] it provides the years are not there, only their current labels, so either way no years mentioned. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:You also deleted the part "(both are subsidiaries of Toy's Factory)". Why? It's important, it is encyclopedic, it's not found anywhere else in the article.
::That detail should only be mentioned on either their own articles or on the bands history section, not here, it is not required, again not on the ] provided. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Further point you just said that ] is not a guideline yet you just cited it to back up your point on the label, so make up your mind. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:;Discography
:The format is not ugly. An indie single is a single released on a independent label.
::Avoiding describing what the format looks like in means of offence it's inconsistent, it isn't in accordance to Misplaced Pages and your means of describing am independently released single is very new to me and probably anyone who edits discography pages in general, as I've said before it title first, details second then peak chart positions third. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:Why did you change one of the titles to "Headbangeeeeerrrrr"?
::That was an edit that I resorted to due to the original title messing up with the table since it has multiple !'s. I couldn't find a means around it so I changed it to that until someone could fix it. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:Numbers are there because the singles have official numbers, at least the major-label ones.
::What official numbers? Where are you even seeing this? {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:The ones that translate back to what what it already says aren't translated. Therefore the argument is invalid.
::Then what's the point in them, they're simply repeating the title, therefore I removed them therefore you just justified my point. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:I followed ]. If you simply wanted to blindly follow the two examples in the style guidelines, why did you delete the sales data ] added? The charts the user added are allowed and are used in many, many discographies. for example, ] is a featured article and it lists "Billboard Hot Dance Club Play".
::If you're following the Kiss discography as an example then let me list two things you are doing wrong:
::*You're not even following it properly, here it is listed as: Release date/year, title, peak chart and certification so you are not following this example at all.
::*It is not even a featured article, it is listed as a start class article, meaning it has many issues to get through before it reaches featured.
::Me removing the sales numbers must have been a mistake then, I recognize their value so I shouldn't have so apoligies for that. The peak charts should only really contain the countries main chart, however this doesn't really matter too much if the album/single/other product hasn't charted in many other countries so I will be fine if all those chart positions remain. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:Billboard Japan Top albums is not the main Japanese chart, it has only existed since 2009 or so. Oricon is the de-facto industry standard in Japan. Therefore it's incorrect to list Billboard Japan as "JPN".
::I'm not very knowledgable about these chart positions in Japan, the fact they have 2 charts confuses me, you win this one. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:The music video table is either completely nonsensical or ugly. What's "performance"? The unformatted bare links look terrible.
::A performance video is a simple video that shows the band performing in the video, a narrative one however tells a story, and a live performance video specifically is a recording of the band performing the song live. remove that row if you want I have just been use to editing these in such a way, also the links, how so? It links you to the video, simple as that, no need to for any further editing, it is in the 'Link' row so it clearly indicated as the link to the video. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:;Members
:Please don't shout. The birth dates are not required, but are not forbidden. Many reliable sources talk about their ages cause it is important. It's not nice to make the readers click on many links to find this info.
::It is already mentioned in the article, but think about it this way, in 3 years the younger of the three will be 18 and the elder will be 19, at that point their age is no big deal, ] was younger when he started so their age is not that big of a deal. Also if they want to read up on the individual members that is what their articles are for, as I said any biographical information should remain on their own articles. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:Their names are in all caps officially. It's incorrect to change the names in the profile to lowercase.
::Let me refer you to the ], it clearly says that they are supposed to be, by Misplaced Pages standards, lowercase, and in the event of it being a title or name the first letter should be a capital, hence the article name also not being in all caps. Just because it's official doesn't mean it should go against Misplaced Pages guidelines. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:I now noticed that you changed the member order. ] is correct, you can't change the official order. By the way, they are obviously ordered by age.
::It is not by official lineup according to labels and reports, typically it is ordered by:
::#What year they joined
::#Surname alphabetical order
::Just because the lineup is announced in one order doesn't mean that we should comply to that order, it is ordered that way to promote the band. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:;Other
:The quotes provide a description of the band's musical style.
::As I said, It would be better to organize these into the actual paragraph and not individually. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:'''In short''', I'm reverting. If you decide to insist or change something else, please seek a consensus here on the talk page first. ---] (]) 03:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

;Addition
{{replyto|SilentDan297}} I have made some changes, now it's much closer to your version. Now:
# I wouldn't really mind reducing the number of music genres. But I think we must discuss it with other editors. I actually think that your version looked neater. The main reason i reverted the genres was that many other editors objected to the change.
# Could you rewrite the quotations in prose? (Actually, I've just noticed you've already rewritten one.) Could you also add some more stuff about the band's music style, also see the suggestions by ] above. Anyway, something about squeaky voices and cuteness is necessary.
# The birth dates are important. If you can suddest some other way to format the list while keeping the birth dates, please do.
::There is no other format, birth dates simple do not get mentioned on the band pages, only their independent articles. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
# I've reformatted the discography. I even deleted the Japanese titles and the translations and the release dates for the singles. It does look neater now, but I don't know, I actually regret deleting so much...
::It remains to be against Misplaced Pages standards, as I said multiple times; Title first, details second and peak charts third. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Also just had a look and I have no idea what you're on about in terms of indie singles, "]" was released via Juonbu Records, as was every single before it, the only single released differently to the rest was the latest ] so this makes no sense what so ever, and if Juonbu Records is a sub-label then that means it's not an indie label, it is as it says a sub-label of an even larger record label. Another mistake I'd like to point out is that ] has not actually charted, if you look at the reference it is not listed, if this is the case then not only will that number be reduced to a mere - but also the article will no longer be notable so will have to be deleted. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 13:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
# Do you want to change the Music videos table? I think my version is much more inconspicuous. What did you mean by "Type: Performance"? All songs/videos are performances. What did you mean by "Narration", the lyrics? If so, could you maybe just add something about it in prose in the Musical style section?
::Remove the Type column then, not bothered about that. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
# I've deleted the part about the first time they performed with the live band to avoid any possible mistakes/misinterpretations. If you look at the Barks article that I cited originally, you will see that it specifically says that they performed with a live band for the first time in 2013.
::A separate discussion is required on this one to be honest, I agree with you on the removal of it temporarily. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:I hope some other editors participate in the discussion too. --] (]) 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:If you can read Japanese, you can look at the source I used ]. It can be used to further improve the article about the single and maybe this one too. (By the way, "pikorimo" or ] is a much better description of their sound than what you or someone else added about trance.)
::I cannot read Japanese I have to use Google Translate so anything you think worth mentioning should be added here add it yourself, also the two genres are very similar anyway, not sure why that matters since it's subjective. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:And ] asked to add something about cuteness/charm, and about "doll-like dancing", headbanging and the wall of death they perform on stage (see our discussion above). I'm afraid I couldn't think of a good way to add it all and I didn't have time to think about it thoroughly, but I hope you will be able to come up with something... --] (]) 05:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::"''Metalhammer described their act using the formula "Short skirts, school girl charm and squeaky voices - just like in the manga comics. But they mix the whole thing with Metal.".''" Already mentioned in the musical style. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

===Third opinion (as best one can)===
] '''] Response:''' Wow, that's a lot of things in one tranche! I'm afraid I'm going to formally decline the request at WP:3O, because much of the above is a fork of earlier discussions on this page, in which more than two editors have participated. Also, with such a huge wall of text, raising many issues at once, it is impossible to extract what the issues are and what they are not. Especially impossible when the discussion has already moved on regarding some of the issues. {{Ping|SilentDan297}}, I recommend you try to discuss one topic at a time. But if you do want to raise many at once, when somebody replies, please don't interleave your counter-replies within their messages, as it obfuscates who has said what.

Although I can't give a 3O on everything raised here, a few things can be said:
* Template documentation does not constitute a ] in the Misplaced Pages sense of the term: a document that has been explicitly recognised by the community to represent community consensus. Template documentation generally doesn't go through this process. In particular, ] hasn't.
* In any case, that template only says "preferably use 2-4". This is merely advisory.
* IMO Kawaii metal is not a real genre. What is said about it in the source can be mentioned in the article, but it's inappropriate in the infobox.
* Calling something "simply ugly, disorganized and cluttered" is merely ]. Following ] is most desirable, however.
* Birth dates and ages: since there's no policy or guideline about it, shouting instructions is out of order: you need to establish consensus for this article.
* The application of ] to stylized names is uncertain. That guideline contains an explicit list of things that should be downcased, and names are not on the list. However, why are the members listed by these names rather than their real names in the infobox?
* If you have trouble with exclamation marks upsetting other formatting, use the HTML code &amp;#33; instead.
* When replying to items inside numbered lists, you should use #:, not ::, to get indentation without disrupting the numbering. (See ] for the gory details.
-- ] (]) 17:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:* I've deleted "kawaii metal" from the infobox. (I didn't have any opinion on this. I can also agree with reducing the number of genres and I even think that the infobox would look better with just "Heavy metal, J-pop, death metal", but I don't want to annoy people (fans) who obviously want the infobox to list more genres than that.
:* Because the members are officially listed like this: .
:* I used allcaps in the Members section because it looks less cluttered than "Su-metal (stylized SU-METAL)". The official capitalization must be mentioned anyway. The official site and the Japanese press always write the names in all caps...
:* By the way, I'm a bit alarmed by ]'s atiitude. He came to the article in June, changed it to look the way he personally liked and since what he did looked like a case of ]. He reverted basically just saying that the way he formatted the article was the "correct" way to do it (, ), and he also thought that adding "kawaii metal" into the infobox was "vandalism" (, ). Also, while replying to some suggestions on the talk page, he has already said "no" to perfectly good suggestions 1. to ] and 2. ]. Now he wants to delete the article for the single "]" cause he didn't find it in the charts linked. (It was linked, but first he deleted the link and then I to make the table look more like his version.)<br />I really find such an attitude somehow threatening. (Cause it threatens the effort to improve the coverage of the band on Misplaced Pages.)<br />By the way, when I saw what SilentDan297 did with the tables, it was too obvious that he took the examples of how a discography can be formatted too literally. , the title "Peak chart positions" doesn't fit when there are only one or two charts listed, it's too long. (By the way, he made some factual errors in the tables. The single is not titled "Ii ne", etc. And he chose to revert the ]'s even though the ] he followed had a column like that. So maybe he didn't actually follow them literally, but rather simply liked a certain layout.)
:* I also find it impossible to reply to ]'s replies above cause they are formatted badly (and you have addressed most of them already, especially the ones about the formatting of the Discography section). But I have read them and addressed what I could by editing the article. (As I said, I have deleted "kawaii metal" from the infobox, added a link proving that "]" charted.) Also, addressing some more, I think that and that a major record label can have an ] subsidiary label. Anyway, it is certainly the case here. The singles were independently distributed. And the major label releases have official ordinal numbers; SilentDan297 can search for "1st", "2nd" on the ] official site. --] (]) 17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

:::It's great to see that you two have started a fresh discussion, much better structured. So perhaps there's not much to say here, except:
:::*WP:3O addresses content issues not conduct issues.
:::*The fact that the official page lists the adopted stylized names doesn't mean we should. They do it for image reasons. We're not here to promote their chosen image, but to record facts. Giving their real names is at least as valid. Giving their ---METAL names is what one would expect of a fan site, but not necessarily of an encyclopedia.
:::With that, I'll bow out. Kind regards to both, --] (]) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

== Fresh discussion ==

OK first things first, I apologise to {{ping|User:Moscow Connection}} for the apparent aggressive behaviour I have shown and for the arguments I have caused, I meant no disrespect or offence from this. The reason I was getting so frustrated was due to the format this particular article was in since I am so use to editing articles in the specific format I have been taught, the edits I made where edits I have made on several band and discography articles In the past and when I first started editing I tried editing differently and I was told it was not supposed to be like that and that all articles had to be similar to remain consistent from article to article, making it easy to read from article to article since they all had a familiar structure and that was what I was trying to do here, make the structure of this article match those of higher standards so this article would also be to the same standard, I wasn't degrading the article by any means I was trying to improve it, It wasn't to make it look in a way I personally preferred I was trying to make it consistent.<br/>Due to the amount of clutter I have caused on this talk page I thought it would be better to start a new clean fresh discussion with separate headings for each topic so as it would be easier to read and make to avoid disrupting the flow of discussions like the way I have in the previous discussion, again I apologise I just got immensely frustrated. Please discuss each different point in their respected sections and I will be sure to respond to them more fairly and not aggressive like I have been previously, I hope we can build the article up much more efficiently together. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Infobox ===
The main issue I have personally remains to be the infobox, it should have just a couple of official genres (referenced of course) instead of six of them, as I have previously explained the following should be removed for these reasons;
*Kawaii metal - This genre described the bands sound in two words; Kawaii being cute in Japanese culture, and Metal being the heavy genre in music, ultimately making cute metal. This is used as a means of promoting the band and is not an official genre, could be in the future if this catches on but as of now it remains unofficial.
*Melodic speed metal - This, like Kawaii metal, is just a means of describing the bands sound, it's melodic, it's fast and it's metal, the difference being Kawaii metal is referenced multiple times and is used by the band and its label, this genre has only been referenced once so it doesn't appear to be that big of a deal, just because a genre has been mentioned by one news article doesn't mean is official.
*] - While this one is official it is actually a sub-genre of ], as I said I would like to keep it generalised and since this just a sub-genre I think it should be removed from here, although this doesn't appear to be too much of a problem since it is an official genre but personally I think it should remain in the musical style section.
*] or ] - They appear to be the same genre, but the way it currently states it sounds like Idol music is the sub-genre of Jpop so again to keep it generalised I would advise its removal, or it least have one of these removed since they appear to be the same thing.
] and ] are fine, they are referenced often and are generalised genres so they should remain since they both describe the bands sound well. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

* I am also sorry if the way I reverted you and warned you looked rude. By the way, I wanted not only to make the article look better, but defend the people who wanted to add things and whose additions had been reverted. I wanted to make them feel welcomed. That's why I added "kawaii metal" back. But I've deleted "kawaii metal" from the infobox already much earlier today. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
* I don't have a strong opinion about this, but several other editors have objected to your edits and added "symphonic death metal", "melodic speed metal" and "kawaii metal" back. Let's wait for more opinions. What I see now is that you want to delete "melodic speed metal", and therefore not mention speed metal at all. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::So far 2 other editors have reverted my edits on the genres, one being an I.P. address who just seemed to have ignored every logical argument I used against him and another user I fail to remember since they haven't reverted me since so I hardly call that an objection, also you are wrong about "melodic speed metal" being completely removed, along with every genre mentioned in the infobox they are all mentioned in the musical style section so don't worry about that, it's is by no means being completely removed from the article. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::But why remove "speed metal" from the infobox? If even we removed "symphonic death metal", there would be be only 4 genres with melodic speed metal. (Anyway, let's wait for more opinions. I think I won't reply here for a week or so in order to allow other editors to comment.) --] (]) 02:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::Because unlike "melodic speed metal", speed metal itself is not a referenced genre. I am really aiming to have just the three genres since they are the main generalised genres of the band since the rest are either sub-genres or genres not often associated with the band so there is no need to include them here when they can be explained in further detail in the musical style section as that is what that section is for. But I do agree with you means of waiting for the opinions of others, however what's your thoughts on the removal of ] or ], you haven't really given you're opinion on that yet. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::: All unsourced genres should immediately removed per ] and ]. Per discussions on ] the genre should be generalized in the best way it can and should never include genres that do not have their own articles, as it would be considered fancruft. While taking that in mind, the only genres that should seemingly be listed are ] and ]. Not to mention genres should be backed by more than a single source anyways. '''] <small>]</small>''' 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::: All genres are sourced. --] (]) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::: Avoiding responding the majority of the post does not help your side. That sentence was bred from these comments, not the article. '''] <small>]</small>''' 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: It's not "my side". I simply responded to the part that concerned me personally cause I'm the one who referenced the genres in the infobox and who listed them the way they are listed now simply because these were the genres I succeded in finding sources for. As for everything else, I've already said that I don't have a strong opinion and I want to hear from the IPs who insisted on listing everything. (See ].) --] (]) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} I agree with ] in leaving in ] and ] but also ] since it is used to describe the band, however once this point was raised I couldn't actually find the genre mentioned in many reliable sources that they are Jpop which baffles me, so due to this I agree, only Heavy metal death metal should be mentioned in the infobox. Also you shouldn't be appeasing to what sounds like fans to have the article in a specific way, they have their own fan bases for that and there is no need to do that here. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 21:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Members ===
Although minor I do believe any personal information regarding the members of any musician should remain on their personal articles opposed to being repeated on their associated band/group articles. I do recognise that their ages are a big deal since they are some of the youngest metal musicians known, but that has already been mentioned in the History section of the article so I see it irrelevant and repetitive to mention their birth dates and age in the members section.<br/> I would also like to point out that while their name are in fact in capitals officials, they should be in lower-case throughout the rest of the article, and although ] doesn't specifically state that names specifically shouldn't be in caps I think its basic principle should still apply and that only the first letter should be a capital but in the members section it should mention that their names are stylized in caps, much like how the bands name should be but is lower caps in the actual article and in the articles title. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

* All these "stylized as" will make the list complicated. I think the birth dates should be there (especially since the list seems to be officially ordered by age). I believe there should be many ways to present the info, though. I think the table that was there originally looked better. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:: Agreed with the ages, however since "Babymetal (stylized BABYMETAL)" starts the article off I just believe that it would make sense, especially since the names are in sentence caps throughout the rest of the article to mention that the names are officially in capitals. It just makes it consistent and avoids confusion and also allows the readers to have a clear understanding that the members names officially are in-fact in capitals. I also believe the order of the members should be via surname however it doesn't bother me too much, that's just how I've edited members lists in the past and present. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::: I agree that listing the members in sentence caps makes the list consistent with the rest of the article. And I agree that listing them in all caps would make the readers wonder why we listed them in all caps. Therefore I changed the list as you suggested. It is okay now? --] (]) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::: I would also like to point out after you reverted me just now that in a the two younger singers are in fact clean singers, a secondary source is more valuable than a primary one so should be mentioned here, just because an official statement made by the band or its representatives say it's one thing doesn't mean that's fact, you even see them performing clean vocals live on stage anyway. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: I'm sorry I reverted you again, but the members should be listed the way they are listed officially. These are official positions, it's incorrect to change their positions/instruments. (The official site states: "BABYMETAL is SU-METAL (Vocal, Dance), YUIMETAL (Scream, Dance) MOAMETAL (Scream, Dance)." See .) I believe ] talks about interpretaions and such, but the profile is not a place for explanations or interpretations. (And I can't see where you saw the words "clean vocals" in the artilce you linked above. The article only says that Yui and Moa are backup vocalists. And keep in mind that Rocket News 24 is not a specialized music site and it is therefore a questionable source in this case.) (And as I said, it's simply a profile, and they should be listed the way they are officially listed.) --] (]) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::: Again I must disagree, I think logically they should include clean singers in their roles since the source calls them "singers/screamers/dancers" on the article and there are many videos with proof that the singers are in fact clean singers, I think due to the popular media this should be included, many people are aware that they do clean sing so until we get opinions of others it should be there to avoid confusion with readers of the article. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 02:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::: What do you mean "clean singers"? The official profile doesn't say that they are ] vocalists or anything. They perform screaming backup vocals, that's all it means. --] (]) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::: They perform clean backing vocals, also take this into consideration, for example fails to state his recent crimes in drugs, drink driving and vandalism, does that mean he hasn't actually committed the crime? Although it is on a different scale the principle stays the same, primary sources can say one thing but fail to mention another, that's why we use secondary sources instead, just because an official representative says it's right doesn't mean it truly is until other more reliable sources agree, in this case the official site has failed to mention that they clean sing as well as scream, I think you yourself are aware that they clean sing in many of the bands songs both on the album and in live performances. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}}

:::::::: My thoughts on this section: The stylizations are trivial and not really needed. The names and age (since the age is notable) are fine to include. Also the type of vocals should just be shortened to "Vocals" for brevity and to avoide edit conflicts over what is or isn't screamed/clean or who is the one performing them. In the end it is ]. "dance" should be removed definitely as dancing my be a skill or talent, but it is not an instrument. '''] <small>]</small>''' 09:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::: Stylizations are necessary because they are written in all caps officially. We write their names differently on Misplaced Pages simply to comply with some Misplaced Pages style guidelines. --] (]) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::: Addition: You see, SU-METAL, etc. are not "stylizations"/"stylized names", this is the actual way the names are written in Japanese. (It's very typical for Japan to write in English in all caps.) It's the way we write their names on Misplaced Pages that is stylization, stylization done in order to comply with some strange Misplaced Pages style guidelines. --] (]) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::: Actually, the way you want to delete "dance" and change "screams" to "vocals" is also ]. The band's official site and ] (a reliable Japanese news site) say "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance". They are dancers, how is this something that can't be included? I object to any changes to what their official site says. --] (]) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::: See ] and ]. As for your second paragraph, you make it very clear you do not understand what ] is at all. Again, you are not adding any backing to your argument with that blatant incorrectness. You have not explained how dance is an instrument, which is what is listed in band member sections, not their occupations. Screaming is not an instrument either, it is a form of using your vocals in music, just like normal "clean" vocals, ] and ]. Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of their official site, to want to follow their official site that religiously is against Misplaced Pages policy. '''] <small>]</small>''' 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::: Oh and I now see they all have separate articles, so their ages and real names should be included there or elsewhere in the article, not in that section. '''] <small>]</small>''' 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Please provide a proof link to a Misplaced Pages guideline that would say that only instruments must be included. And again, what you say is actually ]. I have sources, you are opposing saying things like "screaming is not an instrument", "not their occupations", which are simply your personal opinions. And that the list can't include ages or real names is not true, there's no guideline like that. --] (]) 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I wondered why you were somewhat rude to me, why you didn't even read the infobox you were discussing and why you were so happy when you found a reason to delete their ages from the list<br //>Now i see: ]. You came here simply to help SilentDan297 fighting me. I must say that it's not very nice of you. If you aim is to annoy me, could you stop please? --] (]) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} ] is the guideline that answers your questions. Do your sources call dancing or screaming an instrument? You still sadly do not understand ], oh well. I am not giving opinions, if you would take five seconds to look at any GAs such as ] or ], they do not list occupations or the type of vocals they perform in the member sections. Also no rudeness, I just gave my honest opinion, if you do not like it, oh well. I am not here to help anyone, there was seemingly disruption going on and you do not need to be so uncivil. '''] <small>]</small>''' 11:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:The band is not just a singing group, it is officially a "vocal and dance group", and they are dancers.<br />There's nothing in ] what supports what you are saying. Other articles are not a valid argument. The profile is sourced. The profile is official. You want to change something that is reliably sourced and official, and you don't have a source that would say simply "vocals, vocals, vocals" for all of them. Therefore you want to change the list basing on your own original research. --] (]) 12:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

: If I had a source, I might even prefer to write something like "main vocalist, dancer" and "screaming backup vocalist, dancer" cause it would be more understandable for most readers. But I don't. --] (]) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:By the way, the matter has already been discussed here: ]. Both ] and I have their album and we both can confirm that even the album credits say "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance". It's as reliable and official as it can possibly be. --] (]) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:{{replyto|SilentDan297}} Maybe something like "vocalist, dancer" and "screaming vocalist, dancer" wouldn't be a ] cause it's just saying what their profile says, but a bit differently. How about that? --] (]) 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
::Album liners are citable for that sort of thing; there's a template (though note secondary sources are considered more reliable; primary sources are to be used sparingly—if reliable secondary sources exist, those should normally take precedent, no matter how official a source is). And yes, the album liner does say that; it's not really OR as it is in a published, verifiable source. The real analysis should be into whether it is in a reliable enough source and whether it is important to include in the article. This whole thing seems more like an analysis of what's important to include and which sources are reliable more than anything else. <small>I really didn't wanna be pulled into this...</small> - ] (]) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::I believe that all roles should be changed to vocalist as ] suggested, however I also believe that dancer should really be included however again I must agree to STATic since it does make sense to include only the instruments, It has also been mentioned throughout the article that the three vocalists also dance so doesn't really need to be mentioned here so just vocalist should suffice. Also as what STATic backed me up on their real names and birth years should be removed as it is mentioned on their own independent articles already and is also mentioned in this article as well. Also the all caps should actually be removed due to ] and ]. and {{ping|Purplewowies}}he is not here to annoy you, he is here to contribute to this article as both you and I are here for, and even if you do have the official CD you can;t actually prove you do have it and it's still a primary source, so it shouldn't be used in any argument as it appears to be ]. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm fully aware he's not here to annoy me, I've just had a lot on my plate lately (especially this morning, sorry) and am not usually a super agressive editor of Babymetal articles. I don't really need to prove I have access to a source any more than a person using a paper or subscription source does; it only matters that the source is published somewhere that it can be verified, and there is a Citation Style 1 template just for album liners/notes. The real issue is that the source is primary and contains information that could be considered superfluous (elaboration on vocal uses and styles might be appropriate for something like a prose section detailing musical or thematic elements of their work, but that would be a section in which secondary reliable sources would be pretty much the only source acceptable in any way, especially when said primary sources don't elaborate anything past "Yui - scream" for example (and for that matter, secondary sources would have to actually be discussing the actual ins and outs of their voices, which they for the most part don't seem to do)). Basically, yes, I can verify that the liner says that, as can anyone that has access to it (and heck, as well as —it's not solely in their album), but at the same time, I don't believe it's needed to differentiate types of vocals unless explicitly discussing the vocals and the types they use in some sort of prose section. Part of me wonders if "lead" vs "backup" should be differentiated, but that's a different issue, somewhat. - ] (]) 01:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

::::: Apologies ] that comment was supposed to be for {{ping|Moscow Connection}} since he stated that ] that he was getting annoyed, you actually seem to be participating in the discussion fairly. So by the sounds of what you're saying are you agreeing to the suggestion that only the role "Vocals" should be mentioned here? Or are you suggesting that the two younger members should also be called "Backup vocals" as well, cause to me they are still vocalists so I don't think it matters. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::<small>Oh, I thought it was for me since I stated I didn't wanna be pulled in and I actually ''was'' cranky when I wrote my first message. XD</small> I'm indifferent on a personal-opinion level, really, but considering even just the small consensus here (and the policy/guideline arguments used), I'm swayed to vocalist for the reasons most others (namely you and STATic) stated. So yes, I'm agreeing. As for vocals v. backup vocals (or differentiating Su as lead), that's something where I have no idea what is actually best; I mentioned it because I just don't know, actually. - ] (]) 14:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::: No hard feelings, I have changed the roles to simply vocals. Also what is you opinion on the personal information being mentioned? Such as the birth dates and their real names as they have their own articles. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 16:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: I've changed it back. The info was there from the time of the creation of the article (the table you deleted had everything, all the details and the official positions/instruments) and you changed it without a consensus. There are reliable sources that list them as "vocal, dance" and "scream, dance" and all your changes are based solely on your reflections.<br /><small>It is just a matter of how you prefer the article to look. Could you leave the info in, please? If only for the sole reason of trying not to annoy people who care, who want the article to be as precise as possible. Who actually wrote the vast majority of the article and who are going to continue taking care of it and updating it, unless Misplaced Pages with its necessity to endlessly fight over small but very important details becomes too much of an annoyance for them.</small> --] (]) 17:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} You claim that I change the information without consensus when I just had 2 other editors agree with me (] & ]) and so far one other for the removal of their real names and birth years (]), you have no supporters at the moment so it is you who is now editing without consensus. I am not editing the page to how I personally like it I am editing it to how it is supposed to be via templates, guidelines and by example of many other featured and good articles. Just because something was there at the start of its creation doesn't mean it is correct to have it there, I think if anything you're being over-protective over this article since you created it (as evidenced ) but we have given examples, cited guidelines and we have more editors supporting the removal of dancers and just using vocals so please comply and don't revert this edit, you're just causing another edit war because it's not at the standard you personally prefer it to be, as for the names and birth years to be removed only I and STATic believe they should be removed but if no one else supports you that they should remain then they will be removed. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 11:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}You could certainly ask for stronger consensus (or file an RFC, which I (personally) don't think is quite needed at this stage), Moscow, but to use arguments that those were there from the start and your opinion (and opinions of others who apparently haven't chimed in here) are more important because you wrote it and take care of it more is displaying bits of ] behavior. Can you show us an abundance of reliable secondary sources that specifically use the "scream, dance", etc. bits? Officiality doesn't make a source more reliable by Misplaced Pages's standards or more important. says ] is the "Princess of the Press", but the Misplaced Pages article doesn't make mention of that title because it's not widely used in reliable sources. I personally believe it's okay to make mention of the types of vocals in a section discussing musical style or something of that type, in prose and backed up by reliable sources. I just think that in a list "vocals" or "vocalist" is best. <small>(And to SilentDan, I'm sorry I haven't chimed in to the question you asked. I've been busy the past few days and I haven't had the time to really think about it. I don't have time right now, either (I've already typed too long and must be off to something else), but I promise to add my thoughts about the other later.)</small> - ] (]) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

: I will find you 10 new reliable sources, okay? There won't be many articles in languages other than Japanese, though. I need time until tomorrow to search the net in different languages cause cause I want to find as many non-Japanese sources as possible. (They will be useful for me in the future anyway.) --] (]) 13:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} Until then leave the members section the state most of us have agreed on and list them here, besides ] still agrees that either just "voclas" or "vocalist" is best anyway, list your references here and we will discuss it further, you are forcing you edits and causing yet another edit war so just leave it along until we can agree on its final format, and even if they are not mentioned on this section their roles will be mentioned in more detail in the musical style section anyway so there is no loss. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

::: Rejoice, you got what you wanted. You succeded to drive me away from Misplaced Pages and therefore from contributing to this article. --] (]) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

::: Sorry, I won't be able to continue cause I'm going away again because of the edit war ] started. I think the members section is incorrecnt, it was destroyed for no reason other that a desire of some editor completely new to the band, but I can't do anything...<br />Sorry, I wanted to find more sources, but I won't be able to continue like this.<br />Before I go, five more more reliable third-party sources. Cause I've found them already, so I may as well list them:
:# JaME World:
:# AUX.TV:
:# TAF México:
:# CDstarts (Germany):
:# ]: (see the profile on the right).
: And the profile on the official website of ]: --] (]) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} My mission was never to drive you away from Misplaced Pages but to improve the article which you wouldn't collaborate on, I have already left a message on your talk page and hope you won't actually stop editing. I do not desire the article to be this way I just know it is by standards, if anything I desire the article like every other article to meet higher standards, it doesn't matter if I know the band or not. Also to anyone else still in discussion can you have a look at the sources linked, I'm not sure weather they are in fact reliable or not. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 18:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

{{U|SilentDan297}}: Finally got back to this: {{tq|i=y|"Also what is you opinion on the personal information being mentioned? Such as the birth dates and their real names as they have their own articles."|title=SilentDan297}} I did some thinking and research (snooping around on higher quality idol and J-metal group articles within the scope of Wikiproject Japan) and... the short answer is a resounding... I don't know. I think it might be fine to mention them by their titles, as an article like ] seems to list the people who go by stage names by those names, but then those are the predominant names those people are known as. Basically, I could see it go either way, dependent on how they might best be known—stage names, or similar to the ], where they are referred to by the band names to establish them but otherwise are referred to by their real names. *wonders if there is some sort of policy on stage name v. real name use* As for the birthdates... every idol group I could find (the highest quality of which on Wikiproject Japan's ratings was ] at B-class) listed birthdates, even for artists with their own articles, so... that seems to be the precedent, though typically, I would say no. I do wonder how much of the birthdate inclusion on idol articles is a byproduct of the industry from whence they came (where everything from birthdate to height and weight and blood type is available (Moa's is A, for instance)), and therefore, I wonder how much is appropriate for Misplaced Pages vs. how much is included here. I also wonder if there are even higher quality idol articles that might either back up or refute the birthdate angle. - ] (]) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

:It would make sense being mentioned by their band/group names and then have them linked to their own articles where their actual names are mentioned throughout their articles so yeah I am also all for having their band/group names mentioned only. As for their birth dates I still believe that they should not be mentioned here since it is both mentioned throughout the articles and on their separate articles. So that's me, you and Static who believe their real names and birth dates should be removed unless you do in fact believe that their years on this article should remain. Once we have consensus I or anyone who wants to to so will remove them. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:: No, the info should not be removed. I reverted you. Please stop edit warring. I think you are intentionally disruptive. --] (]) 11:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|Moscow Connection}}: Do you seriously think you own this article? You do not. Just because you don't like this doesn't mean it's incorrect. Several other editors in this discussion agree to this removal while you are the only one who does not agree to this, stop reverting as you are the one causing the edit wars without consensus. ] (]) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Where are these editors? You are lying. ] just said he wasn't sure.<br />I hope eveyone sees you are just being disruptive and intentionally uncooperative and are trying to sneak your changes in. I will have to spend a few hours on ensuring you are blocked for what you have done here. --] (]) 16:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Moscow Connection}}: Myself, ] and ]. Purplewowies agreed to them being named by their stage names OR real names and not both, also stated that when it comes the birth dates being mentioned "...typically, I would say no." So there you have it, only stage or real names and their musical role to be mentioned here, also why are you reverting my discography edits when you have not spoken against them and also my means of keeping the article consistent by changing the names to just their band/group names so as it is easier to understand? There is no logic to what you are doing. ] (]) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
::::<small>Psst, I'm a girl! ;)</small> Further, I don't think both names should be mentioned beyond an initial identification (like what is in the first sentence). Past that, I think that the naming used should be consistent (i.e. not switching back and forth) and in line with what is in reliable sources (I'd have to scrounge around sources to see how different articles refer to them throughout their body, especially as most articles are introductory and will start out by using both to establish who they are, much like this article does; basically a little bit ] and ], though those are typically used in relation to titles). As for the birthdates, I'm mostly unsure as it's really a... shift, I guess? between what my unresearched, gut opinion is (no birthdates) and the way non-nomination (non GA/FA) quality articles for idols treat them (yes birthdates). But I would say that there is, consensus, even if it could be interpreted as weak. If you'd like a larger consensus, Moscow Connection, consider asking at the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page for people to come and provide input (Musicians, Japan (or perhaps even the music taskforce specifically), Pop music, and Metal) or file an RfC to bring more input on what to do about the article's content. But do note that if you go to try to get people blocked because they've edited this article/discussed things on this page (unless they're obviously being disruptive), you are likely going to end up subject to ]. You need to assume more good faith, IMO. - ] (]) 01:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: {{replyto|Purplewowies}} I agree that it would be preferable if the naming were consistent. But calling them Su-metal, Yuimetal, Moametal every single time wouldn't be consistent with the reliable sources used. I can't go through the sources right now, but I believe that in the non-Japanese media it's more common to call them Suzuka, Yui, Moa.<br />Also, the members are introduced in the lead of the Misplaced Pages article by both their real names and Babymetal names. Therefore, the readers would already know their real names and shouldn't be confused when they see "Suzuka Nakamoto" or "Suzuka" or "Nakamoto" or whatever.<br />Also, we can't add "stylized as SU-METAL", "stylized as YUIMETAL", "stylized as MOAMETAL" in the lead cause it would make the lead unreadable. And the current Members section provides the info about how their names are officially capitalized. I believe the info is absolutely necessary.<br />Also, I believe that the members are officially ordered by age and therefore it's required to list their ages.<br />Yes, I believe that SilentDan297 is disruptive and that he intentionally chooses to edit war instead of discussing. I will now create a separate section for this and explain thoroughly. --] (]) 04:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: By the way, MOAMETAL, etc. are their stage names only for Babymetal activities. In Sakura Gakuin, they are Moa Kikuchi, etc. Therefore the situation is not the same as with X Japan whose members are known exlusively as Yoshiki, Toshi, etc. in their professional music activities. --] (]) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Su-metal, Yuimetal and Moametal should definetly be used throughout the article, official sources merely call them by these names in capitals which we have already discussed should be avoided in the prose. To be honest I think adding the "stylized as SU-METAL" and so on anywhere in the article will make it look somewhat confusing and unreadable, just as you described it if it was in the lead. Also if you look at many band pages under FA status, the members are organised firstly by when they joined the band (From those who where in the band first to the latest additions) then it is secondly organised by name alphabetically, in the case of the artists having surnames its by that, in terms of nick-names I would think it would be by the first letter. I think the members section just needs to lose all that information apart from their stage names and musical talent, the rest is to do with the singers themselves which should only really be mentioned either in the article prose or their separate articles, makes the section easier to read and look a lot more organised. ] (]) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Discography ===
It should remain consistent, so far the studio albums table differs to the singles table which differs to the music videos table, it's confusing and inconsistent. I believe it should be in the format I have previously edited in before which follows ], it's simple, consistent and easy to follow. I also believe that the mentioning of what single is indie and what is major should be on their independent articles or mentioned in the albums article since it can explain how it is an indie single or how it is a major single, I just feel it's out of place here. Also the music videos should mention who directed them, what year they came out, ordered in release (which it already is) and have a link to the official video on YouTube if possible, I don't think numbering each video is required as again it is inconsistent with the rest of the section. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

* The Nirvana example at "]" differs from how ] looks now. And "Nirvana discography" is a featured list, while the other example, "]", is not. I don't really mind minor changes like adding a column for years to the Albums table, but I don't see a point in it. I believe the tables look fine and don't go against any Misplaced Pages conventions. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
* I've changed the music videos table, adding years instead of single numbers. I don't know who directed the videos, so I believe there's nothing else to argue about now. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
* By the way, I now see . "LIVE ～LEGEND I、D、Z APOCALYPSE～" is not a translation, it's the actual title, while "Live: Legend I, D, Z Apocalypse" is a somehow clumsy attempt to make the title comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines for allcaps, etc. I won't add it back now, but I'm still sure the Japanese title has every right to be in the table. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
* The tables for singles and albums don't look the same in the examples too, so it doesn't seem that they are supposed to be more consistent than than they are now. I've made more changes, I made the Video albums table look like the Studio albums table. (Again, I want to say that I don't like linking "JPN" to either Oricon or Billboard and I may change that in the future, but now I mainly wanted to make the tables look neater and closer to what you seem to prefer. --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
* Do you want to delete the Notes column from the Singles section? I does look a bit confusing there, but I would want the info to be present in the table somehow... So, okay, if I agree to delete the notes, will we be done with the discography section? :) --] (]) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::Actually the albums and singles tables are similar in the example, on this article however the albums table starts with the title on the left while the singles starts with the years released. I thank you for removing the fake translations and also if it is fine to remove the notes column then I will but only if it won't cause any further argument. Also there is no year column in the albums table, release information about the album is in the Album details column so we would be repeating information, if you mean to say the singles table then it's because singles can be released across several years, sometimes a year beforehand or sometimes a year after the albums final release which has happened on the debut album with singles released from 2011 to 2013. So for both the music video and singles table I believe the Year and Title columns should be switched round as well. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
::: I would prefer to add colunms for years to the Studio albums and Video albums tables instead. (Look at "]", it's a featured list and it's the way it's done there.) (These were not "fake translations", but the actual titles.) --] (]) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: I disagree since release information has already been mentioned in the table, and also the articles: ], ] and ] all have the format I have been proposing and are all featured articles, they all start with the album titles then details, they do not have a separate column for the years. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::: I've previewed the way it would look, and I don't like it at all. In the Singles table, the Year column will interfere with the Chart position column. It's not good, it's very confusing to have two similarly looking columns with unrelated numbers next to each other. --] (]) 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::: This is the way it looks and is known to look this way on many featured articles:
{{Collapse top}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!rowspan="2"| Title
!rowspan="2"| Year
! Charts
!rowspan="2"| Album
!rowspan="2"| Notes
|-
! <small>]<br /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/artist/557736/ranking/cd_single/|title=ＢＡＢＹＭＥＴＡＬ×キバオブアキバのCDシングルランキング|work=Oricon Style|publisher=]|language=Japanese|accessdate=2014-07-20}}<br />{{cite web|url=http://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/artist/552304/ranking/cd_single/|title=ＢＡＢＹＭＥＴＡＬのCDシングルランキング、ＢＡＢＹＭＥＴＡＬのプロフィールならオリコン芸能人事典|trans_title=BABYMETAL CD Single Rankings, Profile|work=Oricon Style|publisher=]|accessdate=2013-06-11|language=Japanese| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6HIAnXEBp | archivedate = 2013-06-11| deadurl=no}}</ref></small>
|-
| "Doki Doki Morning" <small>(DVD single)</small>
| style="text-align:center;"| 2011
| style="text-align:center;"| <small>n/a</small><!--Not applicable because it's a DVD single while the chart is for CD singles.-->
|rowspan="5"| '']''
|rowspan="3"| <small>] singles</small>
|-
| "]" <small>(with Kiba of Akiba)</small>
| style="text-align:center;" rowspan="2"| 2012
| style="text-align:center;"| 46
|-
| "]"
| style="text-align:center;"| 20
|-
| "]"
| style="text-align:center;" rowspan="2"| 2013
| style="text-align:center;"| 6
| <small>First ] single</small>
|-
| "]"
| style="text-align:center;"| 7
| <small>Second major single</small>
|}
{{Collapse bottom}}
:::::: Just because you don't like it in this format doesn't mean others won't either, this is also more consistent with the rest of the section and the year doesn't appear to be confusing at all, there are rows merged and is in it's own column clearly labelled as "Year", also there is no record chart that goes to four digits, that would be crazy, so I still believe this is the format that table should be in.

::: On a small note, the release date in every example I have shown you and you have shown me only shows one release date, however "Live: Legend I, D, Z Apocalypse" has two, one for the DVD and one for the Blu-Ray, that's two. In almost every discography article it will show only the earliest release date of that album, in this case it is October 19 2013 and that date should be the only date there, it makes it simple and less cluttered in the table and since the album has charted any other information regarding its release shall be mentioned on that page. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: I see only a few problems in this section. In the chart positions of their album, Japan should not be given its own separate row heading, I have never seen any other article do that and it comes off as ] since they also have had chart success in other countries. The notes are completely not necessary and improper in the table. That information should be discussed in the article body and at the end of the day it is irrelevant what their "major singles" are, I am pretty sure that is ] anyways. '''] <small>]</small>''' 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::: I've changed the heading for Japanese charts as you suggested.<br />I can agree to remove the Notes column, simply because tables for singles in other discographies on Misplaced Pages don't have a column like that.<br />But it's not ]. search for "メジャー1stシングル" ("first major single") on the ] official website.<br />Why I wanted it to be included is because it explains why their first singles charted so low. (They charted so low because they were independently distributed, meaning that they were sold by the band itself at the band's concerts, promotional and fan events.) --] (]) 11:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::: Good! Just some extra little comment on the notes, it is nothing different than most bands/singers that begin as independent rather then start their professional career at a major label. The early singles for anyone will usually chart low, or not at all. At least you didn't straight out remove them, pretending they never existed like some users do. '''] <small>]</small>''' 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::: ''"At least you didn't straight out remove them, pretending they never existed like some users do."'' I don't understand why you are attacking me. --] (]) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: How is praising your editor opinion, attacking you? '''] <small>]</small>''' 11:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: I wondered why you acted like this and now i see: ]. You came here simply to help SilentDan297 fighting me. I must say that it's not very nice of you. --] (]) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} While It's true I came to ] for help during my frustration you should have also noticed that I admitted to my aggression and simply asked for a third opinion from a professional, and since he has won awards for outstanding contributions to Misplaced Pages I naturally felt that having his opinion on these matters would be of great use, he is not fighting you and nor am I, we are discussing with each over. I have removed the notes column on the article itself as we all agreed that it would be best to do so. Also expanding on STATic's point of Japan having is own row heading is somewhat out of place, why does Japan have two charting companies, shouldn't only one be used? Otherwise how do we include both since they are both Japanese? I've never seen this problem before. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Other ===
Any other remarks should be made here. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
: I think you should put "—" instead of "n/a" on Doki Doki Morning's chart position. Looks better this way.<br />] (]) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

::Done just that, didn't think to change that, thank you. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 11:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

::: You're welcome :D<br />] (]) 13:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a sudden idea and as a means to keeping the article consistent, should Babymetal be mentioned as a '''group''' or a '''band'''? I think only one should be used in order to keep the article consistent and I also believe it should be group since that's pretty much what they are more regarded as "Babymetal is a Japanese metal vocal and dance '''group'''". {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 11:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:I personally use band, since SU-METAL said in a interview (unfortunately I can't find It, but I know It was in a interview while in Europe) that she see BABYMETAL as a 7-piece band. And they are also being known as a "Kawaii Metal band" all over the world (and, since they leave the BABYBONES behind, they're now only using the Kami-Band). So, I think is good to use '''band'''. Anyway, It's my opinion.<br />] (]) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

::Ok, We will wait for others to share their opinion also and come up with a final consensus using that. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== Kami Band ==

I think the members of the Kami band should be listed under the members section. ] (]) 20:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

: I agree however not many reliable sources have done so far, please see ] as a discussion about this topic has already started there. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
: I think they are ''officially'' some very cool Gods of Metal and aren't supposed to have names (or at least have their names listed on the official site). But try to find some reliable sources. And yes, see ] for more details. --] (]) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~ ==

Will someone make the ''LIVE~LEGEND I, D, Z APOCALYPSE~'' article? I think would be good to do, since It charted. Unfortunately I can't, my english isn't ''that'' good. I think someone here should try to do It v(^u^)v.<br />] (]) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

: I will make a stub now (since I'm here anyway...) --] (]) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::Yay! Awesome!<br />'''] (]) 00:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)'''

:::{{replyto|GUROMETAL}} Not that awesome, I will just translate the stuff from the Japanese and the Portuguese articles. :)<br />By the way, the labels are a little bit tricky: The DVD was released on an indie label (also a sublabel of ], and when I wanted to learn more details about it once, I couldn't even find out the name of the sublabel). It's the same situation as with the album: the Apocalypse Edition was not just a limited release, it was technically an indie release cause it was released on an indie sublabel. But now I'm not sure how I can explain it in the article, so I won't. --] (]) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: {{replyto|Moscow Connection}} wow, I don't knew about It! Where did you take the info of the labels?<br />'''] (]) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)'''

::::: {{replyto|GUROMETAL}} I'm not sure. Somewhere I learned the Apocalypse Edition of the album was released on an indie label. And the catalog numbers for the releases (both the Apocalypse Edition of the album and the DVD) start with PPTF or something like this, while the normal releases with TFsomething. And the versions aren't listed on Oricon. --] (]) 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::: {{replyto|Moscow Connection}} Oh, It makes sense!<br />'''] (]) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)'''

::::::: {{replyto|GUROMETAL}} There are more editions no one knows about... . As you can see, this one was also intended to be sold only at concerts. --] (]) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::: {{replyto|Moscow Connection}} I know about It. Have you also seen the I, D, Z? The cover feature them with "normal" outfits. Is like the famous "Ijime, Dame" Japan posters, but they posed to posters and It turn to the covers of the edition. It features "Head Bangya!! -Night of 15 mix-".<br />'''] (]) 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)'''

:::::::: {{replyto|GUROMETAL}} No, I didn't. Do you have a link? I know only about stuff like this: . By the way, Discogs seem to know about some "PPTF-8017" re-release of "Babymetal × Kiba Of Akiba": . It's rather confusing... --] (]) 02:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: I think I was mistaken. The PPTF catalog numbers aren't limited to any particular sublabel. Toy's Factory has given catalog numbers like this to limited editions on many different sublabels. --] (]) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)limited editions of

== Associated acts ==

I think you should add ''Kiba of Akiba'' (since they released a CD single together), ''Pierre Nakano'' (BABYMETAL played with him live; he's a drummer, and BABYMETAL was invited to play in him concert in December, 2012. They played "Head Bangya!!" together), ''Kinniku Shōjo Tai'' (also live performance together; they two held a live concert in the same date and place, in February 2014, and BABYMETAL joined Kinniku's concert and played a song together), ''ChthoniC'' (live performance together; BABYMETAL held a live concert in Taiwan, in February 2014, and ChthoniC joined the stage and they performed "Megitsune" together) and ''Lady Gaga'' (they'll open 5 Gaga's concerts, as you know). I think It should be shown in the infobox, It's pretty important.<br />] (]) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

: Read ]. I think only Sakura Gakuin qualifies. (Kiba of Akiba may, but I don't think it does.)<br />And I think I will delete ] from the infobox now... --] (]) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== Revert ==

{{replyto|SilentDan297}} About :
{{quote|1=The first release by the group was a song called "Doki Doki Morning" and was included on the ''Sakura Gakuin 2010 message'' album by the ] Sakura Gakuin in 2010 and also released the song "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" through the same girl group in 2011 and would be released as an official singer in 2013. These songs alone gained the group some popularity due to their mixture of ], sensational lyrics and their performance which incorporated acts such as the ].|2=Sourced from }}
It doesn't make sense at all. Just awful. Some unrelated random information. <small>(I'm very sorry to say 6this but I think you simply are not qualified to edit this article. Read the explanation below and think about it.)</small>

* ''was included on the ''Sakura Gakuin 2010 message'' album'' — All songs by Sakura Gakuin subunits are released on their albums (which are practically compilations of songs recorded/released by Sakura Gakuin during the previous year). The info is irrelevant and possibly misleading cause the song wasn't originally released on the album (it was released as a DVD single). And the title isn't formatted according to guidelines.
* ''by the ] Sakura Gakuin'' — The article already explained what Sakura Gakuin was and mentioning the group like that again and explaining it's a girl group like it is something new to the reader is very strange.
* ''and also released the song "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" through the same girl group in 2011 and would be released as an official singer in 2013.'' — I have never heard of it being released in 2011. The information is false.
* ''These songs alone'' — What songs, a song from 2011 and a song from 2013? See above.
* ''due to their mixture of ]'' — The fact that their style is a mixture of metal is already mentioned in the article.
* ''"sensational lyrics"'' — What song has "sensational lyrics", "Doki Doki Morning"? Also, how exactly their lyrics are sensational? Any explanation?
* ''their performance which incorporated acts such as the ]'' — What exacly performance (single), what other "acts such as the wall of death" you are referring to and when exactly they performed the wall of death for the first time? In some performance of "Doki Doki Morning"? And it's not an actual wall of death.

That said, just terrible. Basically, every single fact is incorrect or misinterpreted.

You can add something about their first song "Doki Doki Morning" having been released as a DVD single in 2010, that the music video for it was uploaded to YouTube and was noticed by metal (and not only metal) fans from all over the world / gave the band some considerable exposure all over the world. The source/sources for this sentence is/are already in the article.

Anyway, it's just sad that the article was practically highjacked by people who don't know anything about the band and make such awful mistakes. I've only briefly returned to revert the two things I reverted and because of what happens here I won't be able to look after the article in the nearest future. --] (]) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:He used the incorrect words. Ijime, Dame, Zettai was played in live concerts since 2011, but not released. There's a video, and if I'm not wrong a text-article in ''Kawaii girl Japan'', where SU-METAL mention It. By the way, he really edited It wrongly and It was looking really strange. And about the "sensational lyrics", maybe It's about I,D,Z, but It should be on the Ijime, Dame, Zettai article, not here.<br />'''] (]) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)'''
::Yes, it indeed was premiered at a Sakura Gakuin concert in 2011. I will find a reliable source we (or he or you, cause I will probably disappear again) can use. And yes, the article on Blabbermouth says that about "I, D, Z". But it doesn't explain anything, so it can't be added like this. (And technically, the source is not reliable.) --] (]) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::Source: , HISTORY. --] (]) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:::Actually ] is a reliable source according to ], and once again you are showing signs of ownership over this article "...the article was practically highjacked by people who don't know anything about the band and make such awful mistakes." This information is referenced by a reliable source and you removed it simply because you disagree.<br/> The reference states that this is their first release and was included on the ''Sakura Gakuin 2010 message'' album, just because you don't believe this is correct doesn't mean it should be removed since it is backed up by a reliable source, if you can find another reliable source backing up what you are saying them by all means replace what I have said, but there is hardly any evidence that the band/group did in fact start in 2010, the heading and infobox may state that but there is only information regarding activities from 2012 onward so I added this in as a means of backing up the fact that they started in 2010. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 10:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group' or simply 'group' because:
<s>
::::???!!!
::::# You added something incoherent and gramatically incorrect (re-read the quote) and false to encyclopedia.
::::# I explained to you how the addition was factually incorrect. And how it highlighted unimportant facts and reiterated basic things the readers would already know. And how it was therefore useless. And how it was false.
::::# You don't seem to understand.
::::# (I am talking about what you added to Misplaced Pages. Re-read it, then re-read what you wrote and compare. The Blabbermouth article actually looks like a blog post rather than a proper article, though.) ---] (])
</s>


::::: '''Correction''': Okay, sorry, the sentence about "Doki Doki Morning" being released on an album makes sense cause it was released on the album first. But still, it's probably unimportant.<br />I must say that ] actually says "News items should not be used for BLP statements" and you used it for the History section. I think a futher research is needed to decide if what Blabbermouth says about "a buzz" is okay or not. I'm not sure if the article was intended to be precise / provide a precise chronology. I still think a better source is needed. (For example, it says something strange: "was premiered during a SAKURA GAKUIN in July 2011". Missing word? "A Sakura Gakuin concert"?) --] (]) 14:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: I have seen several reliable Japanese articles that said that "Doki Doki Morning" got noticed on YouTube, but nothing like this about the early performances of "Ijime, Dame, Zettai". --] (]) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


'''It is inconsistent with the cited source material.'''
::::: {{replyto|SilentDan297}} Anyway, let's add something about "Doki Doki Morning" and maybe even about it being originally included on a Sakura Gakuin album and about the fact that their second song, "Ijime, Dame, Zettai", was premiered in July 2011 at a Sakura Gakuin concert and that later that year "Doki Doki Morning" was released as a DVD single and the music video for it was uploaded to YouTube and "created a buzz" among heavy metal fans abroad or whatever. (The latter part is mentioned in some English-language article on Barks.) I think it would be a very useful addition and it's nice that you had the idea to add more info about the year 2011.<br /><small>If I forget about the member section and the "vocals" thing, the article is not that bad and "]" in the infobox looks okay.</small> --] (]) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


You can go through all the cited source material, and vast majority of them refer to them as "idol", "metal idol", "idol group" or something along those lines. For example the very first citied sources states:
:::::: {{ping|Moscow Connection}} So the article does in fact hold some truth to it, either way the first section one way or another needs to be expanded, there is no evidence the band/group did in fact start in 2010 and no mentioning of these releases mentioned here by the Blabbermouth article and what you have commented here. I have added an "Expand Section" template in the first section since it does appear bare and lacks such info. If you can find sources backing up their formation and their first releases then that would be great! Also I would appreciate it if you weren't so aggressive, considering you constantly keep asking people to be polite to you, you do a very poor job in respecting the edits made by others contributing to this article. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 23:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


''"BABYMETAL" was formed in 2010 with the concept of "fusion of idol and metal". It is a derivative unit in which three members of the idol group "Sakura Gakuin" work as "Juonbu", and they are quite unusual in the idol market where the group is divided." (translated from Japanese).''
::::::: {{replyto|SilentDan297}} Yes, the article holds a lot of truth to it. (With some minor error I mentioned and the fact that there is no evidence for "IDZ" creating a buzz. I even already added the info to "]", but with a direct reference to Blabbermouth.net.) (But you misinterpreted what it said when yousing the source.) Sorry, I won't be so aggressive. Here are sources for 2010: , . I think it would be better if you removed the "expand section" tag cause it looks awful. We already know what part needs expansion.<br />Today I've already searched for English-language sources for "Doki Doki Morning" causing some stir on YouTube, but I guess the sources I remember seeing weren't in English. I will try to find them, but I'm not sure I will succeed. --] (]) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


The very first English language source cited in the article states:
{{outdent}}{{replyto|Moscow Connection}} I think the fact the template looks ugly is the point of it so as it stands out and any other passer-by editor can contribute and fix the problem, so until the issue is fixed it should remain there. I have searched for sources regarding their formation and releases made in this period:
* explains that the group/band was formed in November 2010 as a spin-off project off Sakura Gakuin. Also shows how they became viral on the internet in 2014 so could also be mentioned in the present section. I used Google Translate to read this article.
* I think says something along the lines that they became popular in both Japan and abroad after the debut release of Doki Doki Morning, however this is using Google Translate since I can't speak or read Japanese.
I wish I could have found more but I appear to be somewhat limited of time right now so make use of those sources if you think they will help. As for the biography you sourced I think we should avoid using primary sources for this and instead use secondary reliable sources like the ones I listed here, although I'm not entirely certain if they are in fact totally reliable. ] (]) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:I'm very sory but because of the edit war you started and still continuing I am not planning to expand this article in the near future. I removed the expand section tag because every Misplaced Pages editor who can expand it already knows what has to be done. I would very much appreciate if you don't tag the article with ugly tags again cause it just makes Misplaced Pages look "unprofessional". --] (]) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


''"The Japanese pop-metal group’s third album, which arrives October 11th, will contain 14 songs and feature a bevy of guest artists."''
::{{ping|Moscow Connection}}: You, I and a couple of other editors are aware of the issues in that section, any other editor or viewer does not. It is mis-informative as information is missing and It's our job to point that out to the readers and to other editors just viewing the page so as they can contribute where possible. Just because it looks ugly doesn't mean it is not correct, the information in that tag is correct and informative, do not remove it. ] (]) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


:::For example, I have alresdy provided you a couple of reliable sources for the fact that the group was created in 2010. You put back a tag saying that the fact is doubtful. And I have already explained why I removed the tag. Cause there's no emergency and it looks ugly. --] (]) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


'''It is inconsistent with the literary definition of the word 'band'.'''
::::But no information has been placed, hence the tag, if you or some other editor was to place the information in then the tag may be removed cause then it is seen as misleading. Just because we are discussing it here now doesn't mean it's there, the information regarding this is still here on the talk page and not on the article so this tag is not misleading at all. ] (]) 21:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Oxford dictionary defines the term band as:
== Labels ==


''"a small group of musicians who play popular music together, often with a singer or singers" ''
{{replyto|SilentDan297}}, {{replyto|STATicVapor}} Could you both stop edit warring and listen to the voice of reason?


I will explain:


Cambridge dictionary defines:
重音部 Records (Juonbu Records)<br />
It means something like "Heavy Metal section" Records. Do you understand? The heavy metal section of ], the one that released records as a band called Babymetal. Doesn't it look like the label was created by ] specially for the band?


''"a group of musicians who play music together" ]''
BMD Fox Records<br />BMD! (Think!) Babymetal Death! And Fox as in "Fox God" and "Megitsune"! It's too obvious it it's their "personal" sublabel created by ] for them.


And you and ] from the infobox (Toy's Factory is one of the biggest Japanese record labels).


So it is safe to assume that the term band refers to a group of musicians. Are Babymetal musicians by definition? Let's see how the term musician is defined. According to Oxford dictionary:
Okay, in order to stop this, I have just the labels with "]". But still, think about what I explained to you, and maybe revert to my original version. <small>|Actually, my guess is that at least one of you doesn't really care about this, doesn't care whether the readers are provided correct information or not, and only wants to make the infobox look "normal".)</small>


<small>I really have no words for what is going on.<br />], can you understand that you have done more harm than good here and that you edit the article without a proper understanding of very basic things about the band?</small>


''"a person who plays a musical instrument or writes music, especially as a job"''
--] (]) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


'']''
: It's not whether it looks normal or not, it's whether it is correct in format and in information. I think either should do really since both are technically true and the full details should be mentioned in the articles history section. I'm personally for either just "Toy's Factory" or to have both "Juonbu" and "BMD Fox" but I highly disagree with using both, either one will do but since it's officially "Juonbu" and now "BMD Fox" I would choose to have those, the mentioning that they are sub-labels of "Toy's Factory" should be mentioned in the prose of the article and not in the infobox. {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{hilite/core| ] ] |{{#ifeq: black ||yellow| black }}}}| ] ] }}|{{hilite/core| ] ] | black }}}} 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


== "Head Bangya!!" ==


The Babymetal girls neither play musical instruments nor write music. So they are singers and dancers, not musicians according to the literary definition, and hence not a "group of musicians" i.e. a band.
(I know this is not directly related with this article, sorry)
Hello guys! I think we should move the article "]" to "Head Bangya!!". Since the release of the album, the YouTube title video changed to "Head Bangya!!"; in spotify the song is also called this way; and in the official band's website, in the discography section, "Head Bangya!!" is used. What do you think about It?<br />'''] (]) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)'''


It is to be noted that the Kami band is not a part of Babymetal according to Babymetal's own official website, they are essentially just a backing band. Many musical acts use backing bands, even solo artists use backing bands during live performances, that doesn't make them a 'rock band' or a 'metal band'. For examples Ayumi Hamasaki uses a backing band during live performances, it is also more or less a permanent band since many instrumentalists are long standing members, who have also appeared in her music videos, just like kami band, but it doesn't make the act a band. it is still a solo act, since those guys aren't official members.
:'''Move''' as the article even states that it was later titled "Head Bangya!!" and official sources also call it this. ] (]) 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:: What article say what? --] (]) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
: '''Do not move to "Head Bangya!!"'''. I don't like "Head Bangya!!" cause it seems to go against the way the word "headbanger" is written in English. "Headbangya!!" would be better and would be more consistent with the Japanese title. --] (]) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
:: This is not on the basis of ]. If "Head Bangya!!" is the English title then it makes sense to use this since this is the English Misplaced Pages and not the Japanese Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I agree with ].<br />'''] (]) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)'''
:::'''Support move''': To be fair, the title has gone under evolution even in official media. It was originally titled in English with the Headbangeeerrr!! title and changed to being Head Bangya!! (which is, IMO, slightly less correct of a translation but pretty much a straight transliteration of the kana, albeit with spaces added). I think as that's the official title, even if it used to be the other name and even if it's incorrect English, it should be used as it's what's used in the official translation, a bit like how ] isn't what's written from a correct translation but the real translation (yes, all your base is a meme, but it's the best I could come up with this late). It's possible there are a few sources (even perhaps archived forms of the official site or old news items on the site) with the original translation that could be used for a blurb about the name changing, but as the official title has changed (unless other policies like ] or something come into play), I believe so, too, should the article's. - ] (]) 06:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


{{ping|GUROMETAL}}{{ping|Moscow Connection}}{{ping|Purplewowies}} I would like to urge people to move this discussion to ] where a discussion seems to already have taken place months ago but has since been inactive and considering this move is concerning this article I think it would make more sense. ] (]) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


'''It is inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages articles.'''
: Let's continue here.<br />I have a better ''source for the EP'': -- on iTunes the EP is called "Headbangya!!", so I think it would be much better to move the article to "Headbangya!!". (The sources GUROMETAL mentioned, I mean Spotify and the (as far as I understood) "]" track listing on the official site are for the song. --] (]) 08:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages articles about other similar musical acts like ] and Necronomidol clearly define them as "metal idol group", which would make defining Babymetal as a "metal band' inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages articles. This will cause confusion among readers at the very least. Other metal idol groups also use backing bands but are still defined as "idols".
::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} But since this is concerning this page it would make sense to move this discussion there for the sake of archiving so as others can view the reasons why the article changed its title on its talk page instead of having to search for it on a different article. Also now your for it again? Why have you changed your mind? ] (]) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


== Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 ==


'''It is inconsistent with the historical precedent in terms of the usage of the 'metal band'.'''
I believe an editor named ] is being intentionally disruptive. I'm frustrated by his attitude and by his lack of cooperation. Frankly saying, I think the editor should be blocked for what he did here.


Historically the term 'boy band' and 'girl band' have been used for groups who only sing and dance like Backstreet Boys, One Direction, Spice Girls etc. The term 'boy/girl band' have never been interchangeable with 'rock/metal band'. Even the origin of the word band lies in the group of instrumentalists used by armies, and have always been linked to playing instruments as described here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/band
A little bit of history.


Instrumentalists were intrinsically linked to the word 'band'. The word 'one man band' conjures an image of a man who plays all the instruments by himself. A group of instrumentalists have historically been referred to as a band, but a group of singers were usually not.
I created the article and somewhat looked after it afterwards. But I wasn't "owning" it. I only reverted people who deleted "death metal" from the infobox, but other than that, I would basically let people do whatever they like. Cause I was happy to see happy to see people learn about the band and come to Misplaced Pages.


But then it happened... On June 19, ] appeared. He reformatted the whole article to look the way he liked and he deleted much more more than added. His changes were immediately reverted by an IP and SilentDan297 immediately resorted to an edit war. He made five reverts in 42 minutes: , , , , , thus violating ]. If only I were here... I would have defended the article from him...


'''The term 'band' is not universally accepted in context of Babymetal.'''
On July 20, I returned to Misplaced Pages and changed a few things back. All my edits were immediately wholesale-reverted by SilentDan297. Two times in a raw: , . All my changes!


A large section of the music community including professionals, other artists and music critics refuse use the term 'metal band' for Babymetal. Referring to them as such is 'contentious' at best. If we strictly go by the definitions then, Babymetal is 'metal' but not a 'band'.
I succeded to change some important things back and correct a few mistakes, but SilentDan297 continues to edit war. Basically, he doesn't seem to listen to anyone at all, he doesn't listen to my thorough explanations of why some things should look a certain way. He just wants the article to look the way he wants.


I believe his edits from August 4 to be a bad faith attempt to sneak his changes into the article again. While no one is looking (cause I was away). This is really the last straw. I believe the editor should be blocked for disruptiveness.


Here is why I think so:


* , - Among other changes, these edits switch the Year and the Title columns around. SilentDan297 is the only editor who thinks that the current column order is against any Misplaced Pages guidelines. (See ] and ].) (I hope users ] and ] will be able to confirm it.)


Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' presents an inaccurate image to the people who are unfamiliar with the group. It does not reflect the true nature of the group. Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' while other heavy metal vocal-dance groups with a backing band are referred to as "metal idol groups" is misleading.
* , - Among other changes, these edits change the order in which the members are listed. See ]. I think that the consensus (2 users against SilentDan297) is to list the members in the official order. (I hope user ] will be able to confirm it.)


* When I reverted most, but not all of his changes from August 4, SilentDan297 again wholesale-reverted me: . Completely reverted all my changes! The edit summary says "I have consensus", which is either a memory failure or an outright lie.


The term 'idol' should be used as Babymetal fits most criteria of being a ] So it should be called a 'metal idol group' instead. If the term 'idol' is not accepted by people here then at least the term 'group' should be used as it will the least contentious. ] (]) 07:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Basically, I am frustrated and I think the editor is dangerous to this page. (Not only because he is disruptive, but also because his knowledge about the band is somewhat limited and he does strange things like changing the official member order or removing any mention of the official capitalization from the Members section.) But every time I look away he repeats the same edits again and he acts like if he hasn't noticed my explanations and other people's opinions. I am even afraid to return to Misplaced Pages now. Cause I'm sure the next time I look at the article I will see he has repeated the same changes again, and the edit summaries will be like "it's correct", "I have consensus", "see discussion on talk page" as if nothing has happened. I am frustrated to the point of not wanting to edit Misplaced Pages ever again. --] (]) 05:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


:Comment: I have no opinion on the matter, but I wanted to talk about the dictionary definitions you include here. Fundamentally, dictionaries do not define how languages should work, so their descriptions should not be taken as gospel. A dictionary is not infallible, and picking a single definition from a single reference work does not determine how a word is used within a given language. Specifically, your definition of "musician" derived from Oxford's Advanced Learners Dictionary is simply one reference point. I've looked in several other dictionaries, and they all define "musician" as a person who creates and/or performs music (, , ), which categorically includes the singers of Babymetal. Dictionary definitions should not be used to demarcate article subjects regardless, as articles are based entirely on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic; whether to describe Babymetal as a metal band or an idol group is entirely contingent on what reliable sources call it.
:There's a lot of grievance in here, but I don't think this is the best place to put it. It really should be in an ] or an ], as there probably aren't a lot of passing admins who would do any blocking without a lot of discussion, as well as this page not really being the place to discuss user conduct in an official capacity (it's an article talk page, for article content discussion). At any rate, it's really late at night for me and I don't have time right now to comment on the actual issue you've raised (nor do I want to do it here as I don't feel the complaint was made in the correct place), but I wanted to get what I did say out now. - ] (]) 06:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with the history of this article beyond what I've personally added to it, so I can't comment on any potential bias, but try to keep such accusations to a minimum unless you can support them with evidence (e.g. with ] or links to prior discussion on talk pages). Comment on content, not the contributor (see also ]). ] (]) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::I removed the part you perceived to be a personal attack. But my point still stands. it was unreferenced, and making definite statements about a widely contentious topic with no consensus among experts is an example of bias and is misleading as far as my understanding goes. Also kindly tell me what is accepted as proof of bias as I am new to this platform (as a contributor), so I can repost with evidence.
::Yes, I agree with you that dictionaries should not be taken as gospels, but that goes for the dictionaries which state otherwise too. And things should not be viewed in isolation. If you take into account the historical trends of the usage of the word 'band', the opinions of large section of music critics and the general perception of the word 'band', then it is clear that in this context the term 'band' includes presence of instrumentalists more often than not. ] (]) 08:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Evidence for claims about other editors or their behaviour is usually done through differences between page revisions (often shortened to just "diff"). For example, of one of the edits I made to the Babymetal article on 8 April 2023 (the exact time of the diff may change depending on your time zone settings). Talk pages also have histories that you can get diffs from, for example . When viewing the history of an article, a diff can be accessed by clicking on the "prev" button next to a particular edit, which compares it to the previous revision of the page before the edit.
:::Something I forgot to mention that may be useful is looking at the history or archive of a talk page to see if a similar discussion has taken place before. ] seems have some relevant discussion. ] (]) 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the reply. And yes I did miss the archive, should have looked at it before posting. ] (]) 09:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:It's late here so apologies for not going through this point by point, but when ] to use "band" was established (archive 3 of this talk page if you'd like to look--there's no official note Designating Consensus™ but a majority of editors preferred band for various reasons at the time), several English sources used "band", and at least one Japanese source used several different terms (IIRC, something like "band", "group", ''and'' "artist") interchangeably. Pointing out sources that only use the words you like feels like cherry-picking.
:Further, "it doesn't match other articles" on its own feels a little "other stuff exists" (which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but in other discussions is generally advised to be used judiciously). Anyway, just like I personally brought up in the last discussion (acknowledging it was technically "other stuff exists"), a lot of articles even for straight idol groups (non-metal genre) use band and group interchangeably. Passcode's article does this for instance (and for a non-metal example, so does Momoiro Clover Z).
:Usage of band is not confusing as to many English readers it would be synonymous with group (which is why some articles use the two words interchangeably!); I can only imagine the most pedantic of readers being confused about it. (Though, if we are to go even just by your definition of musicians, all three original members wrote some music for the band.) As far as universal acceptance goes, it's also not universally accepted that Babymetal is metal, even just going by how often people show up to edit mentions of metal out of the article (actual reliable sources are more accepting, but I'm sure one or more reliable sources exist that refuse to acknowledge Babymetal is metal, either). I haven't seen a source that tries to ''refute'' Babymetal being a band; just not using (or not consistently using) the word "band" is not enough to say that it isn't universally accepted in the sense that it would cause issues with the article to use it, and to say that it is based on that alone feels like it's treading into ].
:Given the fact that band-to-group edits are not unheard of but also aren't any more frequent than metal-removal edits, I'd argue keeping current consensus isn't any more of a contentious option than your idea, unless we are also to strip any mention of metal from the article as well. I don't ''strongly'' care either way (much like the sources overall didn't last time I checked), but the inertia in me doesn't think the actual meat of this argument (its substance and/or any connection to policy and guidelines) is enough to sway me away from just following the current consensus.
:(Whoops. I did go over virtually every point. {{facepalm}} <small>Maybe I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing...</small>) - ] (]) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for taking the time to write that long reply. But please don't bother with "I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing.." , I do not want to waste any more of your time.
::I accept that I was misinformed, and even if I wasn't I am clearly not well versed in Misplaced Pages jargon and rules to argue my case. So I give up and I am no longer asking for any changes in the article.
::The following is just my personal opinion, and is not an argument related to my demand for a change in the article, just ignore it as a rant of an ill-informed idiot. also delete this if it's against the rules.
::First we disregard the historical connection of instrumentalists with the word 'band'.
::Then, we disregard the long-standing conceptions held by the general public on what a 'metal band' means.
::Then, we disregard the definition of musician from Oxford dictionary because it doesn't consider "singers' to be musicians, and that would make Babymetal not fit the definition of a band i.e. " a group of musicians". What is the criteria for choosing one dictionary and not the other IDK.
::Even if we refer to a group of singers as a metal band, even in that case, only one of them sings 95% of the time. Is one singer considered 'a band'?
::Then, we even refuse to call them idols, as per DragonFury's description. His arguments also apply to PassCode, but they are an Idol group, and Babymetal is a 'metal band'.
::Then, we disregard literally all of the musical acts who are literally the same as Babymetal, infact they were all inspired by BM and are essentially BM clones, but they all are called 'idol metal/metal group' but BM is not.
::Then, we disregard all the publications which have referred to BM as 'idol' or 'metal group' instead of band, and only consider the ones which call them 'metal band'. What is the criteria for using one definition and not the other, IDK again.
::From what I can see, the term 'metal band' in context of Babymetal only barely qualifies, that too on technicalities.
::It's like calling a quad bike a car. Yes, you probably can prove that it is a car based on technicalities, but a quad bike is not something that people imagine when they think of a car.
::I know some people really hate BM and call then all sorts of things like 'fake', 'not real metal' and what not. But I am not a hater. I have been a BM fan for years and am not ashamed to accept them for what/who they are. ] (]) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:Most recent news articles from reliable sources use "band" to describe Babymetal. () () (Example 3) As pointed out in previous replies, "band" and "group" are frequently used interchangeably in sources. ] (]) 08:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::Can't we at least add 'idol' in front of 'band'? I am sure that there are many sources which refer to them as 'idol band', I can cite them if needed.
::Also, just an honest question, what is exactly different about Babymetal when compared to Passcode, Necronomidol? Those two groups are referred to as 'idols', while it seems to be missing from the Babymetal article. ] (]) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I was involved in the idol/not idol discussion we had a few years ago; see my comments ] My opinion has not changed since then; Babymetal started as an idol group, but has long since left that title behind, in the same way they are no longer a sub unit of Sakura Gakuin anymore either.] (]) 12:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Yes, I read what you wrote back then. Your arguments if I am not mistaken were
::::# They don't interact with other idols.
::::# They perform at metal festivals
::::# They open for metal bands.
::::# They are featured in metal magazines
::::# They are featured on metal charts
::::# All credible sources don't call them idols.
::::As for the last one I am sure many magazines do call them idols as well. Moreover, most of these can be applied to PassCode as well, but they are idols, and Babymetal is not? It just seems so arbitrary.
::::The following is just personal opinion, so please don't ban me for it.
::::How a vocal-dance group consisting of a singer and two dancers is considered a 'metal band' is beyond me. A 'metal group' would have been a more honest description considering the historical usage and origins of the term 'band'. If anyone says a 'rock band' an image of people with guitars and drums pops up. But I was misinformed all my life and Dreamcatcher was a rock band all along.
::::Btw if there is any way to close the thread/discussion, then please do. I was clearly wrong, and I accept my mistake, and since this discussion has already taken place before it's pointless to continues this thread/discussion. Sorry for wasting you guys' time. ] (]) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Misplaced Pages is based on ] sources rather than the various opinions held by Misplaced Pages editors. By far the great majority of secondary sources refer to Babymetal as a band rather than an idol group. End of discussion. ] (]) 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


== Members section ==
:: I had asked an admin to look at it already.<br />Also, I wanted to post it here to show that we are just wasting our time on this talk page and it's somehow useless to discuss anything with the editor in question. I had conceeded to many changes after ] expressed his opinion (with the exception of "JPN Oricon" that I thought didn't look right), but I went away for a few days, and SilentDan297 again made the article look exactly as he wanted. As if my or anyone else's opinions never existed.<br /><small>By the way, I changed the last paragraph after you replied. I think I have to say this cause it's usually not advised to change a message after it has been replied to.</small> --] (]) 08:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


The recent IP edit got me thinking about tidying up the Member section (See ] for my previous thoughts). There's a whole list of people there, somewhat mish mashed together as "members", "Kami Band", "dancers", and "other members". I still say most of that list can be reduced to take out musicians that were with the group for only one year. My suggestion would be to change it to five categories really:
::: I discussed it with the other editors and yourself and when it came to the edits I made to this article you where the only one against them while I had a couple of others agreeing to them. There are still edits I made to the article which you reverted and have still yet to make any comment on such as the format of the discography, you have yet to comment on that but you revert anyway, also ] is the only one who backed you up on the members, the full discussion regarding all of these anyway are here: ] as it discusses all the points I have tried to edited, of which several editors agree to with you being the only one against them. I will refrain from editing for now but you have yet to comment on the rest of these matters, by doing that you are essentially forcing your edits. I have combated against every comment you made against my edits but insist I am the one who is wrong without citing to templates or guidelines which we follow and refuse to listen to the logic of other editors just because it doesn't follow the official website of the band/group. I await whatever may come of this to fully explain myself but you need to be more cooperative, so far you are failing that. ] (]) 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Okay. That's nice that you say that you will refrain from editing but I don't really want you to refrain from editing, just to refrain from repeating the same non-consensual changes.<br />''"everal editors agree to with you being the only one against them"'' - Can you provide a quote to confirm this? A quote saying smth like "I agree with you and Moscow Connection is the only one who objects"?<br />'']'' - I have already linked it.<br />(Yes, there are other matters I haven't reiterated here again.) --] (]) 14:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


*Current Babymetal members
:::::{{ping|Moscow Connection}}: Unfortunately every edit I attempt to make, which is in accordance to guidelines and templates, is reverted. Essentially If I make the edits I have been doing you will just revert, so until this is resolved I will halt my edits for now, although I will still make my argument for the edit's I have made on the ] section which I still await your reply against the edits made on the discography and a new reply on the members. I'm glad that the genres have been resolved at least. Also I would like to point out that just because you are more "knowledgeable" of the band doesn't justify your edits, that I've just noticed appears to be the main driving force of your edits. If you want to play that game I will have you know I also own the Babymetal album and read up on the band in news articles, I thoroughly enjoy the music they make and love how different it is compared to most metal bands out there. So there you have it, I hope you know that I edit not because I enjoy the band/groups music and not because I am a fan, but because I want the article to a much higher standard, of which I believe by you reverting me is preventing me doing so. ] (]) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
*Past Babymetal members
*Past backup dancers
*Current Kami Band members
*Past Kami Band members


Where we draw the line for inclusion is definitely up for discussion. For example: In the backup dancers section, Minako Maruyama and Minami Tsukui both were with the band for less than a year, but for multiple shows in the US, EU, and Japan. Saya Hirai, Kotono Omori, and Shoko Akiyama only joined for the October 2018 shows, but Saya then appeared at shows in Australia as well. Do we include all five, plus the two Avengers, just Maruyama and Tsukui, or Maruyama, Tsukui, and Hirai, or only the Avengers?] (]) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Frankly saying, i think you are just wasting everyone's time.<br />What happened is:
::::::# You came and changed the ''whole'' article.
::::::# I reverted ''some'' of the changes.
::::::# ''You'' asked Static to help ''you'', and with his help you successfully added some of your changes back. The changes that I personally think are either absolutely incorrect or not very good include the official positions/instruments and the labels in the infobox.
::::::# Other stuff you changed and I successfully reverted ---- no one seems to care about it except you. Basically every one else says either way will do.
::::::# You are continuing. You write walls of text, you say same things over again. I don't want to waste my time on this. I only hope that you won't ask another friend to come by and vote against me. Cause as I said, you have already changed enough.
::::::# Could you please just stop and expand the article instead of fighting over the column order and the birthdays? From my part, I promise I will add some stuff about 2010 and "Doki Doki Morning" in September. But basically, there are two reliable sources I could find now: Barks and Tower Records. They are already on this talk page. You can use them. I have already told that something about "DDM", how it was originally released on the album and then a music video was shot for it and it was released as a DVD single and uploaded on YouTube and it created some buzz or whatever will do. And "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" was indeed their second song and it was indeed premiered in July 2011 at a Sakura Gakuin concert. (But the buzz, I don't think it created anything...)
::::::# That's all.
::::::# I'm very sorry if what I wrote looks rude, but I have wasted may hours on fighting you over small changes and I have basically lost already and you are continuing and you want to revert everything I corrected and you want to damage the article even more.
::::::# By the way, I looked at some articles you created and they look absolutely different. If these are "guidelines", why aren't album details in a separate column and is the year column first?: ], ], ], ], ], ].
::::::# Basically, I think you are continuing to insist for the only sake of proving you were right.
::::::# Now that's all. --] (]) 08:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


:Rather than just discussing it, I made a go of trying my suggesting categories (took out the references for clarity):
:::I stated what I did about placing it in a user conduct RFC or an admin noticeboard because it would generate more discussion from a variety of admins and editors and not just whoever frequents this page plus whoever you notified, something that could make discussion here biased in one way or another. (And depending on who you notified, it's possible said notifications could be construed as ], even if it was unintentional. (And no, not all notification is canvassing, I just don't/haven't looked at who you notified, but I don't want someone to get in trouble for something like that.)) Plus talk pages for articles are usually for discussion about the article, not user conduct, even if the user's conduct is related to the article. - ] (]) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:'''Current Babymetal members'''
::::Okay. :) I don't want to waste any more time on this either. Someone else wants to. :) --] (]) 14:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:* Su-metal (]) – vocal and dance (2010–present)
:* Moametal (]) – scream and dance (2010–present)
:* Momometal (]) – scream and dance (2023–present; previously an Avenger (backup dancer) from 2019 to 2023)
:'''Past Babymetal members'''
:* Yuimetal (]) – scream and dance (2010–2018)
:'''Past backup dancers'''
:{{div col}}
:* ] – backup dancer (2018)
:* ] – backup dancer (2018)
:* Shōko Akiyama – backup dancer (2018)
:* Saya Hirai – backup dancer (2018)
:* Kotono Ōmori – backup dancer (2018)
:* ] – Avengers; backup dancer (2019–2020)
:* ] – Avengers; backup dancer (2019–2020)
:{{div col end}}
:'''Current Kami Band members'''
:{{div col}}
:* Anthony Barone – drums (2019–present)
:* Chris Kelly – guitars (2019–present)
:* CJ Masciantonio – guitars (2019–present)
:* Clint Tustin – bass (2019–present)
:* Ryan Neff – bass (2023–present)
:* Matt Deis – bass (2024–present)
:{{div col end}}
:'''Past Kami Band members'''
:{{div col}}
:* Mikio Fujioka – Kami Band; guitars (2013–2018; died 2018)
:* ] – guitars (2013–2023)
:* Leda Cygnus – guitars (2013–2023)
:* Boh – bass (2013–2023)
:* Hideki Aoyama – drums (2013–2023)
:* Isao Fujita – guitars (2015–2023)
:{{div col end}}
:] (]) 16:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::I would simplify the categories since the past and current statuses are already communicated by the years. I am in favor of trimming all unsourced entries until they can be reliably cited.
::: '''Babymetal'''
:::* Su-metal (]) – vocal and dance (2010–present)
:::* Moametal (]) – scream and dance (2010–present)
:::* Momometal (]) – scream and dance (2023–present)
:::* Yuimetal (]) – scream and dance (2010–2018)
::: '''Kami Band'''
:::* Mikio Fujioka – guitars (2013–2018)
:::* ] – guitars (2013–2023)
:::* Leda Cygnus – guitars (2013–2023)
:::* Boh – bass (2013–2023)
:::* Hideki Aoyama – drums (2013–2023)
:::* Isao Fujita – guitars (2015–2023)
::: '''Backup dancers'''
:::* ] – Avengers (2019–2020)
:::* ] – Avengers (2019–2020)
:::* Momoko Okazaki – Avengers (2019–2023)
:::* Saya Hirai (2018)
:::* Kotono Ōmori (2018)
::] (]) 03:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Just an FYI for anyone who has this page on their watchlist; I posted this about a week ago, I plan on editing the members section tomorrow. I'm not 100% sure what format I will use, but I'm leaning towards using the sub-sections as provided by User350, but retaining the unsourced current Kami Band members. ] (]) 07:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:51, 28 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Babymetal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconJapan: Biography / Music Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:11, January 21, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Biography task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Music task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconPop music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMetal
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal
WikiProject iconWomen in Music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Babymetal:

  • Add 'Kami Band' members in either the Members or Live performances sections with reliable references.
  • Add band images.
  • Update MV, live disc releases, etc. with the latest.
Material from Babymetal was split to Babymetal discography on 21:34, 19 January 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.


The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group'.

The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group' or simply 'group' because:


It is inconsistent with the cited source material.

You can go through all the cited source material, and vast majority of them refer to them as "idol", "metal idol", "idol group" or something along those lines. For example the very first citied sources states:

"BABYMETAL" was formed in 2010 with the concept of "fusion of idol and metal". It is a derivative unit in which three members of the idol group "Sakura Gakuin" work as "Juonbu", and they are quite unusual in the idol market where the group is divided." (translated from Japanese).

The very first English language source cited in the article states:

"The Japanese pop-metal group’s third album, which arrives October 11th, will contain 14 songs and feature a bevy of guest artists."


It is inconsistent with the literary definition of the word 'band'.

Oxford dictionary defines the term band as:

"a small group of musicians who play popular music together, often with a singer or singers" [band_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com


Cambridge dictionary defines:

"a group of musicians who play music together"


So it is safe to assume that the term band refers to a group of musicians. Are Babymetal musicians by definition? Let's see how the term musician is defined. According to Oxford dictionary:


"a person who plays a musical instrument or writes music, especially as a job"


The Babymetal girls neither play musical instruments nor write music. So they are singers and dancers, not musicians according to the literary definition, and hence not a "group of musicians" i.e. a band.

It is to be noted that the Kami band is not a part of Babymetal according to Babymetal's own official website, they are essentially just a backing band. Many musical acts use backing bands, even solo artists use backing bands during live performances, that doesn't make them a 'rock band' or a 'metal band'. For examples Ayumi Hamasaki uses a backing band during live performances, it is also more or less a permanent band since many instrumentalists are long standing members, who have also appeared in her music videos, just like kami band, but it doesn't make the act a band. it is still a solo act, since those guys aren't official members.


It is inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages articles.

Misplaced Pages articles about other similar musical acts like Passcode and Necronomidol clearly define them as "metal idol group", which would make defining Babymetal as a "metal band' inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages articles. This will cause confusion among readers at the very least. Other metal idol groups also use backing bands but are still defined as "idols".


It is inconsistent with the historical precedent in terms of the usage of the 'metal band'.

Historically the term 'boy band' and 'girl band' have been used for groups who only sing and dance like Backstreet Boys, One Direction, Spice Girls etc. The term 'boy/girl band' have never been interchangeable with 'rock/metal band'. Even the origin of the word band lies in the group of instrumentalists used by armies, and have always been linked to playing instruments as described here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/band

Instrumentalists were intrinsically linked to the word 'band'. The word 'one man band' conjures an image of a man who plays all the instruments by himself. A group of instrumentalists have historically been referred to as a band, but a group of singers were usually not.


The term 'band' is not universally accepted in context of Babymetal.

A large section of the music community including professionals, other artists and music critics refuse use the term 'metal band' for Babymetal. Referring to them as such is 'contentious' at best. If we strictly go by the definitions then, Babymetal is 'metal' but not a 'band'.



Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' presents an inaccurate image to the people who are unfamiliar with the group. It does not reflect the true nature of the group. Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' while other heavy metal vocal-dance groups with a backing band are referred to as "metal idol groups" is misleading.


The term 'idol' should be used as Babymetal fits most criteria of being a Japanese idol group. So it should be called a 'metal idol group' instead. If the term 'idol' is not accepted by people here then at least the term 'group' should be used as it will the least contentious. Lucems (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I have no opinion on the matter, but I wanted to talk about the dictionary definitions you include here. Fundamentally, dictionaries do not define how languages should work, so their descriptions should not be taken as gospel. A dictionary is not infallible, and picking a single definition from a single reference work does not determine how a word is used within a given language. Specifically, your definition of "musician" derived from Oxford's Advanced Learners Dictionary is simply one reference point. I've looked in several other dictionaries, and they all define "musician" as a person who creates and/or performs music (, , ), which categorically includes the singers of Babymetal. Dictionary definitions should not be used to demarcate article subjects regardless, as articles are based entirely on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic; whether to describe Babymetal as a metal band or an idol group is entirely contingent on what reliable sources call it.
I'm not familiar with the history of this article beyond what I've personally added to it, so I can't comment on any potential bias, but try to keep such accusations to a minimum unless you can support them with evidence (e.g. with diffs or links to prior discussion on talk pages). Comment on content, not the contributor (see also Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks). ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I removed the part you perceived to be a personal attack. But my point still stands. it was unreferenced, and making definite statements about a widely contentious topic with no consensus among experts is an example of bias and is misleading as far as my understanding goes. Also kindly tell me what is accepted as proof of bias as I am new to this platform (as a contributor), so I can repost with evidence.
Yes, I agree with you that dictionaries should not be taken as gospels, but that goes for the dictionaries which state otherwise too. And things should not be viewed in isolation. If you take into account the historical trends of the usage of the word 'band', the opinions of large section of music critics and the general perception of the word 'band', then it is clear that in this context the term 'band' includes presence of instrumentalists more often than not. Lucems (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Evidence for claims about other editors or their behaviour is usually done through differences between page revisions (often shortened to just "diff"). For example, this is a diff of one of the edits I made to the Babymetal article on 8 April 2023 (the exact time of the diff may change depending on your time zone settings). Talk pages also have histories that you can get diffs from, for example this one. When viewing the history of an article, a diff can be accessed by clicking on the "prev" button next to a particular edit, which compares it to the previous revision of the page before the edit.
Something I forgot to mention that may be useful is looking at the history or archive of a talk page to see if a similar discussion has taken place before. This archive seems have some relevant discussion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. And yes I did miss the archive, should have looked at it before posting. Lucems (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It's late here so apologies for not going through this point by point, but when WP:CONSENSUS to use "band" was established (archive 3 of this talk page if you'd like to look--there's no official note Designating Consensus™ but a majority of editors preferred band for various reasons at the time), several English sources used "band", and at least one Japanese source used several different terms (IIRC, something like "band", "group", and "artist") interchangeably. Pointing out sources that only use the words you like feels like cherry-picking.
Further, "it doesn't match other articles" on its own feels a little "other stuff exists" (which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but in other discussions is generally advised to be used judiciously). Anyway, just like I personally brought up in the last discussion (acknowledging it was technically "other stuff exists"), a lot of articles even for straight idol groups (non-metal genre) use band and group interchangeably. Passcode's article does this for instance (and for a non-metal example, so does Momoiro Clover Z).
Usage of band is not confusing as to many English readers it would be synonymous with group (which is why some articles use the two words interchangeably!); I can only imagine the most pedantic of readers being confused about it. (Though, if we are to go even just by your definition of musicians, all three original members wrote some music for the band.) As far as universal acceptance goes, it's also not universally accepted that Babymetal is metal, even just going by how often people show up to edit mentions of metal out of the article (actual reliable sources are more accepting, but I'm sure one or more reliable sources exist that refuse to acknowledge Babymetal is metal, either). I haven't seen a source that tries to refute Babymetal being a band; just not using (or not consistently using) the word "band" is not enough to say that it isn't universally accepted in the sense that it would cause issues with the article to use it, and to say that it is based on that alone feels like it's treading into original research.
Given the fact that band-to-group edits are not unheard of but also aren't any more frequent than metal-removal edits, I'd argue keeping current consensus isn't any more of a contentious option than your idea, unless we are also to strip any mention of metal from the article as well. I don't strongly care either way (much like the sources overall didn't last time I checked), but the inertia in me doesn't think the actual meat of this argument (its substance and/or any connection to policy and guidelines) is enough to sway me away from just following the current consensus.
(Whoops. I did go over virtually every point. Facepalm Facepalm Maybe I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing...) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write that long reply. But please don't bother with "I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing.." , I do not want to waste any more of your time.
I accept that I was misinformed, and even if I wasn't I am clearly not well versed in Misplaced Pages jargon and rules to argue my case. So I give up and I am no longer asking for any changes in the article.
The following is just my personal opinion, and is not an argument related to my demand for a change in the article, just ignore it as a rant of an ill-informed idiot. also delete this if it's against the rules.
First we disregard the historical connection of instrumentalists with the word 'band'.
Then, we disregard the long-standing conceptions held by the general public on what a 'metal band' means.
Then, we disregard the definition of musician from Oxford dictionary because it doesn't consider "singers' to be musicians, and that would make Babymetal not fit the definition of a band i.e. " a group of musicians". What is the criteria for choosing one dictionary and not the other IDK.
Even if we refer to a group of singers as a metal band, even in that case, only one of them sings 95% of the time. Is one singer considered 'a band'?
Then, we even refuse to call them idols, as per DragonFury's description. His arguments also apply to PassCode, but they are an Idol group, and Babymetal is a 'metal band'.
Then, we disregard literally all of the musical acts who are literally the same as Babymetal, infact they were all inspired by BM and are essentially BM clones, but they all are called 'idol metal/metal group' but BM is not.
Then, we disregard all the publications which have referred to BM as 'idol' or 'metal group' instead of band, and only consider the ones which call them 'metal band'. What is the criteria for using one definition and not the other, IDK again.
From what I can see, the term 'metal band' in context of Babymetal only barely qualifies, that too on technicalities.
It's like calling a quad bike a car. Yes, you probably can prove that it is a car based on technicalities, but a quad bike is not something that people imagine when they think of a car.
I know some people really hate BM and call then all sorts of things like 'fake', 'not real metal' and what not. But I am not a hater. I have been a BM fan for years and am not ashamed to accept them for what/who they are. Lucems (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Most recent news articles from reliable sources use "band" to describe Babymetal. (Example 1) (Example 2) (Example 3) As pointed out in previous replies, "band" and "group" are frequently used interchangeably in sources. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Can't we at least add 'idol' in front of 'band'? I am sure that there are many sources which refer to them as 'idol band', I can cite them if needed.
Also, just an honest question, what is exactly different about Babymetal when compared to Passcode, Necronomidol? Those two groups are referred to as 'idols', while it seems to be missing from the Babymetal article. Lucems (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I was involved in the idol/not idol discussion we had a few years ago; see my comments here. My opinion has not changed since then; Babymetal started as an idol group, but has long since left that title behind, in the same way they are no longer a sub unit of Sakura Gakuin anymore either.DragonFury (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I read what you wrote back then. Your arguments if I am not mistaken were
  1. They don't interact with other idols.
  2. They perform at metal festivals
  3. They open for metal bands.
  4. They are featured in metal magazines
  5. They are featured on metal charts
  6. All credible sources don't call them idols.
As for the last one I am sure many magazines do call them idols as well. Moreover, most of these can be applied to PassCode as well, but they are idols, and Babymetal is not? It just seems so arbitrary.
The following is just personal opinion, so please don't ban me for it.
How a vocal-dance group consisting of a singer and two dancers is considered a 'metal band' is beyond me. A 'metal group' would have been a more honest description considering the historical usage and origins of the term 'band'. If anyone says a 'rock band' an image of people with guitars and drums pops up. But I was misinformed all my life and Dreamcatcher was a rock band all along.
Btw if there is any way to close the thread/discussion, then please do. I was clearly wrong, and I accept my mistake, and since this discussion has already taken place before it's pointless to continues this thread/discussion. Sorry for wasting you guys' time. Lucems (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is based on WP:SECONDARY sources rather than the various opinions held by Misplaced Pages editors. By far the great majority of secondary sources refer to Babymetal as a band rather than an idol group. End of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Members section

The recent IP edit got me thinking about tidying up the Member section (See Talk:Babymetal/Archive 3#Inclusion of New Kami Members for my previous thoughts). There's a whole list of people there, somewhat mish mashed together as "members", "Kami Band", "dancers", and "other members". I still say most of that list can be reduced to take out musicians that were with the group for only one year. My suggestion would be to change it to five categories really:

  • Current Babymetal members
  • Past Babymetal members
  • Past backup dancers
  • Current Kami Band members
  • Past Kami Band members

Where we draw the line for inclusion is definitely up for discussion. For example: In the backup dancers section, Minako Maruyama and Minami Tsukui both were with the band for less than a year, but for multiple shows in the US, EU, and Japan. Saya Hirai, Kotono Omori, and Shoko Akiyama only joined for the October 2018 shows, but Saya then appeared at shows in Australia as well. Do we include all five, plus the two Avengers, just Maruyama and Tsukui, or Maruyama, Tsukui, and Hirai, or only the Avengers?DragonFury (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather than just discussing it, I made a go of trying my suggesting categories (took out the references for clarity):
Current Babymetal members
  • Su-metal (Suzuka Nakamoto) – vocal and dance (2010–present)
  • Moametal (Moa Kikuchi) – scream and dance (2010–present)
  • Momometal (Momoko Okazaki) – scream and dance (2023–present; previously an Avenger (backup dancer) from 2019 to 2023)
Past Babymetal members
  • Yuimetal (Yui Mizuno) – scream and dance (2010–2018)
Past backup dancers
  • Minako Maruyama – backup dancer (2018)
  • Minami Tsukui – backup dancer (2018)
  • Shōko Akiyama – backup dancer (2018)
  • Saya Hirai – backup dancer (2018)
  • Kotono Ōmori – backup dancer (2018)
  • Riho Sayashi – Avengers; backup dancer (2019–2020)
  • Kano Fujihira – Avengers; backup dancer (2019–2020)
Current Kami Band members
  • Anthony Barone – drums (2019–present)
  • Chris Kelly – guitars (2019–present)
  • CJ Masciantonio – guitars (2019–present)
  • Clint Tustin – bass (2019–present)
  • Ryan Neff – bass (2023–present)
  • Matt Deis – bass (2024–present)
Past Kami Band members
  • Mikio Fujioka – Kami Band; guitars (2013–2018; died 2018)
  • Takayoshi Ohmura – guitars (2013–2023)
  • Leda Cygnus – guitars (2013–2023)
  • Boh – bass (2013–2023)
  • Hideki Aoyama – drums (2013–2023)
  • Isao Fujita – guitars (2015–2023)
DragonFury (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I would simplify the categories since the past and current statuses are already communicated by the years. I am in favor of trimming all unsourced entries until they can be reliably cited.
Babymetal
Kami Band
  • Mikio Fujioka – guitars (2013–2018)
  • Takayoshi Ohmura – guitars (2013–2023)
  • Leda Cygnus – guitars (2013–2023)
  • Boh – bass (2013–2023)
  • Hideki Aoyama – drums (2013–2023)
  • Isao Fujita – guitars (2015–2023)
Backup dancers
  • Riho Sayashi – Avengers (2019–2020)
  • Kano Fujihira – Avengers (2019–2020)
  • Momoko Okazaki – Avengers (2019–2023)
  • Saya Hirai (2018)
  • Kotono Ōmori (2018)
User350 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Just an FYI for anyone who has this page on their watchlist; I posted this about a week ago, I plan on editing the members section tomorrow. I'm not 100% sure what format I will use, but I'm leaning towards using the sub-sections as provided by User350, but retaining the unsourced current Kami Band members. DragonFury (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Babymetal: Difference between revisions Add topic