Talk:Hikaru Utada/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit warring

@79.65.101.219: Please explain why you are removing sourced information repeatedly. Your edit summary applies to only a tiny fraction of what you are removing, and is therefore unacceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with the IP on this one: there's way too much detail already and it needs pruning. Remember that you are aiming this at ordinary readers, not fans (sometimes it helps to look at a page for a person in whom you don't have a particular interest to judge the amount of detail you would feel comfortable with). Btljs (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's an altogether ridiculous amount of trivia. This is a general purpose encyclopedia. It is not the place for a blow-by-blow list of her every move. Nobody cares when her father set up his Twitter account, or what songs she considered performing at a particular concert. Some of this stuff might be ok for page 6 of this week's teen magazines, but not for here. We do not care which particular website was hosting a song for download. I would expect the record company to update their webpage with details of her single. I would NOT expect to read about it here. It is not notable that "fans could text to join Utada's mobile list to receive future news updates". What are we even trying to say with lines such as "a track was reported to be released as a Japanese single at a then-unspecified date"?? What about "she expressed she could be planning to do a cover album, or just take a break to get some new ideas". It's so vague as to be pointless. This is not myspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.219 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 December 2015‎ (UTC)
  • I don't so much care about what you removed as why. The edit summary is there for that reason, and your edit summaries were extremely vague:
    • "none of this was notable"
    • "<blank>"
    • "Are you sure the general reader needs to know the date that her father set up his Twitter account?!"
    • "Removing trivia. This is not the place for a minute-by-minute account of her every musing. Also, blogs are not a reliable source."
  • Only the last summary was acceptable. "Notability" is only applicable to the article topic in determining whether the article can remain on Wikipedia, or whether it should be deleted. Once notability has been established for the topic of the article, it is irrelevant for anything else in the article. Non-notable information (meaning information about topics which would not have their own article) is regularly used in all Wikipedia articles, so using that as a reason for removing content is not acceptable. Having a blank edit summary is also not acceptable or useful as it give no indication regarding why the content was removed or changed.
  • Per WP:BOLD, once your edit had been reverted, you should have immediately brought the discussion to the talk page here and explained why you were removing the information, especially since your edit summaries (until the very last one) really gave no valid reason for removing the content.
  • Also, if you plan to regularly contribute, I recommend creating an account so that you can better keep track of your contributions, and so your privacy is protected. Sharing your IP address can reveal a lot more than you may want to be revealed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Hikaru Utada → Utada Hikaru – Per MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:JA, and consistent use in academic and other high-quality sources. Detailed rationale and source pile given in separate post below, so the WP:RM page isn't clogged with a huge entry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nominator's evidence in support: The subject's albums (other than those released under stage names) all uniformly use "Utada Hikaru" in the Latin alphabet) [1], [2], including her English-language releases. Even our own articles know this, resulting in the absurd and reader-confusing situation of us having articles at Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 1 and Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 2 for an artist we're calling "Hikaru Utada". Utada's own website, http://www.utadahikaru.jp/, is clearly titled "HIKKI'S WEBSITE: Utada Hikaru Official Website", in both the English- and Japanese-language page sets, and this name order is preferred throughout the site. Some instances of "Hikaru Utada" appear, but they're small minority, and do not appear to have been authored by her but by site staff. Of especial importance is one such post from from ~12 years ago, "[2003/03/13] Thank you very much!" [3] explicitly stating she was temporarily officially using the name "Hikaru Utada" but would be returning to "Utada Hikaru" later. She actually returned to using simply "Utada" with the next two releases, and then did in fact switch to "Utada Hikaru", starting with the first single collection and the Utada Hikaru in Budokan 2004 DVD (both in 2004), and continuing with Heart Station (2008), then Wild Life and second singles collection (both 2010). A few releases reverted to the mononym "Utada" (in 2009 with This Is the One, and on DVD releases in 2004 and 2010). Further evidence of the artist's "official" use of U.H. name order is provided by All for You: UH Premium Single Box Set (Korean compilation, 2005), and the various volumes of the Utada Hikaru Single Clip Collection DVDs, up through 2006. Zero releases bear the name "Hikaru Utada", even during the approx. 1-year period that adoption of this name had been announced by her staff blog, a plan that was self-evidently abandoned pretty quickly (though the 2006 book Gods of Rock seems to confirm that she was using the H.U. name order in the US in 2004 [4]). Also, the artist is Japanese American and bilingual, with fanbases both Western and Eastern, and it is not plausible that these name choices and their changes over time are ignorant, accidental or random.

  The previous RM in 2008, which moved this article away from the earlier Utada Hikaru title, was based (albeit in good faith) on essentially nothing but the then-current wording of MOS:JA, which at that time strongly favored Western name order regardless of other considerations. I think the above MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF argument is actually entirely sufficient for a move. However, a notable amount of debate was had about MOS:JA's wording throughout 2015 and perhaps earlier (I wasn't tracking it the whole time) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related articles#Personal names now provides a checklist of points to consider.

  The #1 point on that list is: "Use the form personally or professionally used by the person, if available in the English/Latin alphabet (this can include the spelling appearing on their official website or official social media profile, but do not rely on a URL when the actual text is all Japanese)", and the evidence presented above perfectly complies with this. The previous RM noted a 7:1 Google hits ratio in favor of "Utada Hikaru" over "Hikaru Utada". A more carefully constructed search today still results in a 4.8:1 preference for "Utada Hikaru" [5], [6]. While [7]. While the original RM showed a slight favoritism toward "Hikaru Utada" in a Google News search, Western news sources are notoriously bad for this kind of question, as they routinely force Western name order for lowest-common-denominator expediency reasons (this is also why we don't use stats about them in various other human-name-rendering RMs, such as those dealing with diacritics). Nevertheless, some use U.H. name order, including Time magazine, despite that publication's American conservatism [8], and them same could be said of New Statesman [9]; however, plenty of news sources use H.U. order.

  The next MOS:JA naming criterion: #2, appearance in other encyclopedias: "Utada Hikaru" is used in Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World [10] which is professionally edited, but the opposite result was found in Encyclopedia.com [11], which seems to be pro-edited (and which has information we are missing, including on Utada's early bi-national life, BTW). I did also find "Hikaru Utada" in World Heritage Encyclopedia [12], but this is a false hit because its content is derived in part directly from our own (and it's very obvious in their article on this subject, which even has the same headings from an earlier version of our article). The Guinness Book of World Records uses U.H. order (she has a WR? why doesn't our article say so?) [13] [note: if the content is not visible at that link, it is here, 2nd entry: [14]], and in another of their publications [15] (if not visible, see top entry here: [16]]. Another tertiary source, The Children's Book of Music, gives the U.H. name order [17]. The Encyclopedia of World Pop Music, 1980-2001 gives all names in the form "Utada, Hikaru", so is of no help [18]; same goes for Contemporary Musicians: Profiles of the People in Music [19]. The "Hikaru UTADA" or "UTADA Hikaru" formats [20] are also of little relevance to WP. Other search results looking for such topical encyclopedia entries just turn up blogs and wikis and such [21].

  Back to MOS:JA, #3 & #4 "Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world ... [or] in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language": Utada's record/video labels consistently publish her material as "Utada Hikaru" or "Utada", never "Hikaru Utada"; there seems to be no other relevant party to consult, since no one else is using her name on her behalf. The 5th point only applies to diacritics.

  The cited MOS:JA section also says: "Follow the usage of academic texts or a widely used reference such as a published encyclopedia in matters of spelling, macron usage, and name order. Such sources generally give Japanese names family name first." There are few academic-journal sources with which to work. The industry (not academic) journal Perfect Beat has U.H. name order [22], as does the German-language academic journal Digitale Jugendkulturen ('Digital Youth-culture') [23], the Journal of the Society for Asian Music [24], and the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry [25]. Same U.H. results in similar Japan-oriented trade journals, including Japan Spotlight [26], Look Japan [27], and many others; but this was not entirely consistent (I found three exceptions in this class of trade publication: [28], [29], [30]). Academic books favor U.H. order, such as the media-studies volume Popular Culture Co-Productions and Collaborations in East and Southeast Asia [31], Globalization and Popular Music in South Korea [32], and Japan After Japan: Social and Cultural Life from the Recessionary 1990s to the Present [33] (I can't find any that use H.U. order). Not sure Managing Media Companies counts as academic, except in an MBA sense, but it, too, has U.H. order, in a list with "Janet Jackson", etc. [34] Non-academic English-language materials on Japanese pop culture naturally lean toward native Japanese name ordering, like Anime Reign [35], etc., but this is not universal, as shown by Giant Robot [36]. The above seems to be about the best we can do for a recent pop-culture figure.

  Google N-grams and Books: An N-grams search produces results for "Utada Hikaru" but zero for "Hikaru Utada" (in a corpus that only has data up to 2008, and which I constrained to 1997 at the lower bound, to weed out any historical people with this name) [37]. A Google "Books" search is useless statistically (though was how many of the cited sources were found, using a search string of "Utada Hikaru" OR "Hikaru Utada" -wikipedia [38]); the majority of the results are Billboard Magazine (i.e., low-quality [added: namely, tertiary and with close fiduciary ties to the music industry] news material, not books) which seems to have a policy of forcibly westernizing names; self-published crap ("e-study guides", "mini-bios", etc.) that has to be ignored; and sheet music (which naturally follows the labels in using "Utada Hikaru"). Not all of the entertainment press is as jingoistic as Billboard: [39], [40]. Two pieces of professionally-published fiction that turned up (one in French) give U.H. name order when mentioning her in an in-context way [41], [42]. I stopped trawling these entries after about 10 or 12 screenfuls of results. The majority of the sources using H.U. order were either unreliable, or were newssources, and we already have GNews stats showing that they tend to favor that order, so I need not link them all here; I did include notable cases of "anti-U.H." results in the data above.

  Overall, I think the case for a move back to Utada Hikaru is overwhelming, both on the basis of current WP:POLICY and per a preponderance of reliable, high-quality, non-news sources.

  PS: Note that various of these sources can be WP:MINEd for additional information to use in this article, beyond the two I already highlighted for this purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Updated with additional rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support move. Given the substantial changes in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related articles#Personal names since 2008, I find the evidence that SMcCandlish has compiled seems to, point by point, suggest that a move is needed here. I find the evidence in relation to Follow the usage of academic texts or a widely used reference such as a published encyclopedia in matters of spelling, macron usage, and name order. Such sources generally give Japanese names family name first and Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world ... [or] in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language to be most convincing here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support move. Apart from the MOS guidelines cited by nom, it should be moved per the WP:COMMONNAME policy. The guidelines cited here elaborate on that policy for specialized cases; but even without that elaboration, COMMONNAME would call for the move. TJRC (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Opposeper WP:MOS-JA and WP:ENGLISH. Any media that would use Utada Hikaru would also put their other artists in Eastern order of names. The result would be a mishmash of artists half of whom would use Eastern order as their stage name and others with Western order as stage name. Is that the plan going forward? What if the artist primarily uses a Japanese name in their works, but when they print album covers they use Eastern order? Same with Korean singers, who like to use their given name as a singularity. Also, why would Billboard magazine be suddenly thrown among the low-quality works when it is one of the main secondary sources for appeal of artists to the English-speaking world. Is NPR a low-quality work as they preferred Western order as well? [43] And why are you looking at French magazines, they aren't English-speaking world either. I also suspect WP:JTITLE #2 "Use the form found in an encyclopedia entry from a generally accepted English encyclopedia;" would still list Utada under U and not H. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC), updated 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  @AngusWOOF: I know you changed your !vote, but wanted to address your questions: I relegated Billboard to low-quality on this, because it's a tertiary source, of statistics not content-analytic material (except where it includes actual articles, and none that I saw were specifically about Utada). Billboard is a high-quality tertiary source – encyclopedic, essentially – of statistics on American music sales and airplay, of course. Sources that are great for one thing may be useless for another. As a news source, it wasn't considered in any detail, since I glossed over those in bulk as being in favor of H.U. order. The main issue with Billboard was that it badly polluted the GBooks search results. Your point about #2 I already covered, and specifically noted the cases of "Utada, Hikaru" as not counted among "Utada Hikaru". The "Utada Hikaru" examples were from encyclopedias that would not have had "Presley, Elvis". I don't recall citing a French magazine, but a German journal, and French and English fiction. I included them per "any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language"; because the journal was an academic source and those were scarce but high-quality; the French bit was one of two non-trivial references in fiction showing contextually how fans refer to her (I guess this is trivial, on reflection; and because German, French and English have the same Westernized-order tendencies with Asian names, so it stands out that these non-Eng. sources used the preference of the subject. I don't understand what you mean by "What if the artist primarily uses a Japanese name in their works, but when they print album covers they use Eastern order?" What works (in English) does this refer to other than the albums? I'm not sure we care about latinized names tacked onto Japanese-only releases. Utada's case was unusual specifically because she puts out jp and en and mixed-language material, and has a large English-speaking following (I confess I'm a fan of her non-pop material, despite being a middle-aged white guy with near-zero interest in Asian pop culture – I don't even like anime much). As for the random J-pop and K-pop stars, I think WP:COMMONNAME will keep them all at Westernized name order, due to the lack of, well, all the Utada-specific sort of evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for all the research that you have presented for Utada's case. It really goes a long way above the "I don't like it." or that the Japanese printed it this way so you have to use that despite the official English adaptation with the different name arguments I've been having to read at other talk pages. You're right in that she did use Western order for a few years, and that might have skewed some of the search results. Also Billboard tends to arbitrarily translate some of the album and single names. I was merely objecting to that as that, along with Rolling Stone, Variety and other English-language magazines are fair game for treatment of the subject among mainstream English language sources. They may not be as strong as the academic sources of course, but I wanted to make sure the academic sources that use Eastern order aren't pushing their bias for that format towards every subject originally from Asia. As a hypothetical example, some academic sources might insist on naming their subject "Chan Kong-sang" over "Jackie Chan".

  Kumi Koda vs. Koda Kumi should be next to use Eastern order for overwhelming self-identifying marketing. That one's been at contention for years.

  Nami Tamaki uses Eastern order English on her Asian albums, but when marketed in the US (Tofu Records) they have used Western order. This should stay Western as her notability in English comes from her marketing with her Western name at anime conventions. Other stars have yet to cross over so their names aren't determined. These are the cases I was concerned about as well as artists whose albums stay mainly in Asia and go with whatever order their companies push. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC) updated AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC) and 16:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Got it. I'd like to be in on the K.K. RM when that comes up. I intended this one to be a model for how to do this. I'm not certain it's 100% a success. The consensus so far is going with it, but without much interest in the MOS:JA arguments. I think they may have to be tied more specifically (in MOS:JA's actual wording, I mean) to precisely what parts of naming and other WP:POLICY (including MoS in that sense) that they're relying upon. As for the music press, a common problem with them is that they are not really a reliable source for name style. They have WP:INDY problems, because almost all their revenue comes from sales of advertising to the music industry, and as a result they basically "do what they're told" (i.e. closely follow label press releases, artist websites, typography on release covers, etc.) when it comes to how to stylize artists' names, how to capitalize titles, etc. I don't know whether this issue extents to name order (judging from the above, you'd know better than I would), nor how many of these publications it affects, but we have seen at RM a strong trend for over-capitalization crap like "Do It Like A Dude", and over-stylization crap like "P!nk", almost entirely coming from the music press (and associated online sources that are the Web side of music journalism, with the exact same fiduciary bias). Part of the problem of dealing with such sources is that people who don't have much experience with or haven't thought very hard about, sourcing questions are under the mistaken impression that every newspaper/magazine/journal/news-site is a secondary source for every single thing it publishes in every context. No sources are or can be treated categorically this way. The average publication of that sort is a primary, secondary and tertiary source for different things in different contexts, all at the same time. The average newspaper journalism article (but not editorial, op-ed, column, or endpiece) is a secondary source for most material in it, absent a reason to suspect otherwise, and that's about as far as we can generalize.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment See also WP:DIVIDEDUSE. It's not clear going one way or the other. For Utada's case, common name may override as with Chow Yun-Fat where they insist on going by English Eastern order for name. But I'm more concerned with the bevy of Asian pop stars that use mainly the Asian name and then choose Eastern or Western orders on a whim. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd thought about citing Chow as precedent, but wanted to keep this a "pure" test of the new MOS-JA approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a case where the artist insists on the Eastern ordering on all her high profile albums and credits, also having that American background. Even on the English closing credits for Kingdom Hearts all the regular translated Japanese names are in western order but music is listed as Utada Hikaru. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MOS-JA and WP:ENGLISH. This reminds me of how the English and American date systems are different, seeing there is a WP:PRECEDENT to use an English name order we should stick by that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is one case where she wants it her way so support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Knowledgekid87: I know you changed your mind on this, but wanted to ask what you meant by "Oppose per WP:MOS-JA", when the majority of the basis of the RM is point-by-point compliance with the analysis steps laid out in that guideline? What in MOS-JA did you think was contradicting the nomination? If there is something, it may suggest that the guideline needs revision to not contradict itself. As I noted on its talk page, I think the personal names section does have at least a focus problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per overwhelming evidence presented by nom. If the WP:MOS-JA and WP:ENGLISH guidelines disagree with the WP:COMMONNAME policy, then they need to be brought in line with it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Nihonjoe: I've asked Knowledgekid87 for clarification on where they think MOS-JA might have such a conflict, as I couldn't detect one. MOS-JA's section on this appears to be a Japanese-subject-specific rubric for how to apply COMMONNAME and the other WP:AT criteria (among which COMMONNAME is not supreme, just one of several). There are frequent complaints that WP:ENGLISH conflicts with AT, especially COMMONNAME. There are also frequent complaints that COMMONNAME is over-relied upon and misapplied. I suspect that resolution of this will take several more years and will not be entirely in the manner of forcing guidelines to comply with COMMONNAME, but also involve adjusting COMMONNAME to be interpreted less frequently as a hammer that treats everything as a nail. That said, the core basis of this RM is COMMONNAME, when it comes to the source pile, though I prefer the IDENTITY argument. I think it's ethically wrong and contravenes the spirit of BLP policy to side, for nothing but convenience, with sources that try to force a name on people that they do not prefer or accept.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing where we disagree. It is extremely unlikely that reliable sources will be overwhelming in their use of a name not preferred by someone. If we stick to WP:COMMONNAME, which requires us to use reliable sources to determine the most common usage, then there should be no problem. Most (if not all) of the media refer to people using their preferred name or moniker. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    • This tends not to be true of sportspeople. Most Western sports organizations push First Last on Asians in English, and also drop diacritics. They may even declare it an "organizational standard" and whatever. The issue AngusWOOF highlights above is also relevant - an an Asian artist may have releases using both orders, and we often have no idea what their own preference is. (I agree that, then, we have little choice but to go with common name in English sources, having no identity argument to weigh).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Commonname and a clear choice made by the artist and/or her publishing companies. In my experience Japanese artists usually use western order in latin script on their releases, so to consistently use eastern order on all materials says rather a lot. It also seems to be reflected in sources. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It helps that she has American ties so it's not just the Japanese marketing companies that are pushing the Eastern order. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point! I added that to the rationale pile.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support; strong evidence from nominator.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  04:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support She has had English press written about her for over 15 years now, and while press in 2000-2002 might have referred to her as Hikaru Utada more often, I don't think that's the case now at all. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Done deal. Btljs (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Utada Hikaru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101006013837/http://www.emimusic.jp:80/hikki/uhsc2/index_j.htm to http://www.emimusic.jp/hikki/uhsc2/index_j.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Article image

Can someone please find a better (current) picture of Utada for use on the article? The last one(s) used are almost, if not more, than 10 years old. I'd do it myself, but I'd fear the wrath of not getting an appropriate, loyalty-free image. (Jeimii (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

I see three images over at Commons [44], one of which is dated 2009. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Those and more at Commons:Category:Hikaru Utada. I rather like Commons:File:Utada Hikaru 2004.jpg, and I think of the photos there it comes closest to the height of her career, and is a moderately flattering shot. It was on the article until recently, so I gather that mine is the minority viewpoint, though. TJRC (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Utada Hikaru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031221130/http://www.emimusic.jp/hikki/news/news_j.php to http://www.emimusic.jp/hikki/news/news_j.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wtyd on here

Im not sure make a decision Freackk (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)