FANDOM


this title Edit

may i change it to "Utaite Wiki:Qualifying Utaite/YouTube singers/Songs"? since only utaite is incorrect.

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:31, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be Utaite Wiki:Qualifying Utaite, YouTube Singers, and Songs like on Wikipedia. That way, they don't look like subpages. --Sbluen (talk) 22:46, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
You can just make it more general by changing it to "Utaite Wiki:Qualifying Singers and Songs" 
Sen(talk) 23:59, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
okay, i'll make it Utaite Wiki:Qualifying Singers and Songs then
---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:38, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

About collab songs Edit

should they have the same req. eg Bad∞End∞Night is quite well known, but since it's mostly a collab of 8 (!) utaite, the percentage of utaite singing a cover remains high while on the other side the number of covers is low. it doesnt meet the req but is mostly a collab song. and also since it's a collab song the possibility of the song gaining many covers is lower than for normally solo songs. (since it's not so likely for many utaite to cover a song more than once) (e_e stupid explanation though. i hope i made my point clear)
also for Fate: Rebirth. i've wanted to delete this page before, but came in conflict with myself e_e since it's 20 singers singing...

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:28, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The easiest policy would be to divide 15 by #of roles but naturally that isn't really a good answer so maybe like

3-5 singers needs 12 or something
6-10 singers needs 9 or something
The only song above 10 I can think of is smiling which is taken care of.
of course the number refers to the number of roles not necessarily the number of people singing.

The req numbers may seem kind of high but honestly group songs are a bit easier to make and gain views because it shows up in multiple people's nicorepos and also it's not as much effort per singer.

Edit: Bump, because no one's replied.

Raspomme (talk) 07:07, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

e_e wikia notifications...

i think the numbers look fine, realistic o-o i guess we can go with them... and about the mylist...

My List/MylistEdit

they do write it "My List" as 2 words so either we have to write "My List" or "mylist" imo... but changing mylist to My List seems weird to me e_e (but probably only bc i'm used to "mylist"(. for newcomers who use english nnd it might be confusing though.

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:15, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

"My List" looked weird to me too so I just tried to reach a compromise between our style and NND, but I see what you mean.

Raspomme (talk) 01:47, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

hmm i would say that it would be logical to use either the one or the other option... but i have to say, that when i first came to the wiki i "intuitively" wrote it MyList.... (but that doesn't mean anything)....

but since the majority of pages have it written "mylist" we should now stay with that for now (imo).

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:17, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't make a difference, so we'll stick with it. I guess I also thought of it as MyList because thats how it is on NNDict.

Raspomme (talk) 01:59, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

e_e it does? i see... hmm.. we might want to rename it to "Mylist" and add on a note, that it's stylized "MyList" on english NND (just like with "utattemita" and "sang_it")

on another note... should it be NicoNicoDouga w/o the spaces? i prefer the spaced version though...

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:08, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's not "MyList" but "My List" on NND.

In truth, I am 1200% neutral about spaces or not with NND.

Raspomme (talk) 01:35, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

If it's a consideration, Wikipeida uses "Mylist" and "mylist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga --Sbluen (talk) 04:04, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

@pomme that was a typo though e_e

@sblu but the point is, that the "L" is not stylized, so it's ok but good idea

wikip. doesnt write it as NicoNicoDouga and i guess the nndict we have is the only page, that uses the unspaced ver. so i'll change it

---ⒷⓁⓊⒺⒷⒾⓇⒹ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:18, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion doesn't show up Edit

I'm not sure why the related discussion, as was tagged from the forums, isn't showing up on this page. I guess having that fixed can be another thing for the wishlist. --Sbluen (talk) 07:19, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

if u understood u right (u mean the box at the end of the page i think), yeap i told them already. (the 3rd point)

"request new forums

  • Redirecting to the new forums seems to be not working ([1])
  • i think more than 4 topics should be allowed (e.g. for the subpages of [2])
  • the related topic box should also appear on other pages than the article pages (e.g. on the category pages (they dont appear here [3]) or for other namespaces like that [4])
  • the related topics feature should also allow to link to related discussions, since we tend to wander from one topic to another."

since its a new feature i guess well just have to be patient for everything to work out ---ブルーバード🐤 (ʞlɐʇ) 10:45, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. --Sbluen (talk) 02:02, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Some small stuffEdit

For Kokoro/Kokoro Kiseki, would each Kokoro and Kokoro Kiseki both have to have 15 covers each or 15 covers together? And was there never a leeway for covers in the first place?

Forwhomwelove (talk) 06:45, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Since they are listed as one, the covers of both would count together. Kokoro Kiseki is the answer song of Kokoro after all. It would be treated like Kokuhaku Yokou Renshuu then.

There's no leeaway on the number of covers or view cont of covers, since I believe the requirements are already quite low. (But honestly if a cover only has like 9.5K instead of 10K views, it wouldn't this horrible to count it as qualifying, I'd say)

---ブルーバード🐤 (ʞlɐʇ) 14:00, July 5, 2013 (UTC)