Template talk:AKB48

WikiProject Pop music (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Japan (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. 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: 15:07, June 21, 2020 (JST, Reiwa 2) (Refresh)
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Answering the question

This is the English Wikipedia not Japanese . It doesn't matter how they have their infobox set up. And if we do not list the soloist in the infobox how will anyone know?

I guess we just write it in the AKB48 article, and everyone will now. Actually, the info is already there. If it is hard to find, you are welcome to create a separate article section or a separate article dedicated to AKB48 solo releases. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template[]

"Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." It is a citation from Wikipedia guidelines: [1]. (By the way, I didn't want to hide the list of solo artists in this . I just made two groups number 3 by accident.) But if there's no consensus for leaving the list of soloists in I will delete it in a week. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

One, that is a essay and not a guideline. Two, The same could be applied to the articles (like 1830m). The soloist should stay, there are over 70 members in the group and only a select few are soloist and they should be pointed out on the template just like how the subunits are. And you giving a deadline to come up with a consensus, is in a way showing ownership. しれない Shirenaitalk 06:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
1. Templates are made not for "pointing something out" but to help navigation between pages. 2. Why did you add Sakiko Matsui who released a piano album and left Atsuko Maeda and Rino Sashihara out? It seems like you don't have a definite criteria for inclusion. And the result looks terrible and misleading to me. Yuki Kashiwagi and Minami Takahashi haven't released any solo CDs yet, too, yet you put them into the "Soloists" section. 3. The units are only linked in the template once. One link is enough. For example, if someone wants to go to the Tomomi Itano article fast, there's already a link. Tomomi Itano is already just one click away from any AKB48-related page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
And how is not adding a soloists section not helpful in navigation? If I wasn't a fan a didn't want to look through the page for whatever people may have a just wanted to look at the navigation box it is helpful for those type of people because they get the general run down. Maeda and Sashihara are no longer apart of AKB48, so why would I list them as soloists? Maeda graduated and Sashihara is in HKT48, a sister group not the main group. It is true that Kashiwagi and Takahashi haven't released any solo material yet but they are making their debut so they are soloists, who just haven't debuted yet. しれない Shirenaitalk 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
They released solo singles when they were in AKB48. You altered the template solely basing on your point of view. The problem with this section is that without a simple and comprehensible criteria the section is misleading. And the links are already present in the navigation box. You should better rewrite the units section in the AKB48 article, because it looks terrible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
They are no longer in AKB so they cannot be considered soloists from the group, which is what the section is for. しれない Shirenaitalk 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sakiko Matsui is completely out of place there. Really, you better fix the units section in the AKB48 article cause it's scary. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, please don't delete my replies from your talk page. I've already explained there that I don't "own" AKB48-related articles and I don't intent to. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I can remove comments from my talk page. しれない Shirenaitalk 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not recommended and certainly is not polite. I put some time into explaining to you about me not owning the article, but you deleted my explanation and kept repeating the same accusations. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was read and noted. Also your first explanation is still on your talk. If you want to discuss this more let's continue this on your talk where I initially wrote you about the owning. This article is hardly the place to have this discussion. しれない Shirenaitalk 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have another problem with the section. The template lists SDN48 that has been disbanded, therefore for consistency we should either list Atsuko Maeda and Rino Sashihara in the Soloists section or delete SDN48 from the template. I still vote for simply deleting the section. Also, the title "Soloists" could be misleading. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Soloist and related articles are two different sections. SDN48 can stay because even though they disbanded, it is still a related article due to the former members, same producer, participation in concerts and sharing the same theater. Rino and Atsuko are a different story as both no longer are apart of the group, which is what the soloist section is suppose to point out. Current soloists from the group, not past. How is the title misleading? It makes perfect sense. しれない Shirenaitalk 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It says "Related groups", and the "Soloists" section doesn't say it lists only the current and future solo artists, or, rather, "members who released or will release solo CD singles". Also, the word "soloist" has several different meanings, and I think it's confusing. I think the section completely destroys all my idea for this template. (I'm saying "my idea", cause I didn't watch over the template close enough and one day found it like this: [2], with 20 or so links to AKB48, with some members missing, completely useless.) The template existed like that for awhile, so it should be up to you to prove the section is needed. I am right in this situation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything, this is a template not a article where I am adding in brand new information. You have to accept that other people Wikipedia to and learn how to work with them rather than try to remove things that doesn't fit your point of view. しれない Shirenaitalk 12:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Comment on content, not on the contributor." (quoted from Wikipedia:No personal attacks). --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not making a personal attack. You are always saying it doesn't match the way you want things or you don't think it is a good thing and because of that nothing can get resolved. しれない Shirenaitalk 03:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's not argue, then. Let's do something about the list of units and solo artists in the AKB48 article to make it look good and let's decide together what to include in this template and how. If you looked at my recent s to the template, I'm struggling to make it better. I added Chocolove from AKB48 cause it wasn't a temporary unit, now the "Units" section is exactly the same as the "Permanent units" section in the Japanese Wikipedia template. But I don't know what should be done with Queen & Elizabeth. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I made another attempt to make the "Units" section look logical. Look at it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I also changed the "Soloists" section. Your opinion? --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)